HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 6/12/2008 (3)
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - FINAL MASTER PLAN DISTRIBUTION LIST
FOR VILLAGES @ MARCOLA MEADOWS
DISTRIBUTION DATE JUNE 12, 2008
TO
v
~
f
~
=Z
/
L
Planning Staff
Gary Karp, Planner III
Jim Donovan, Urban Planning Supervisor
Steve Hopkins, Planner II
Engineering
Matt Stouder, Englneenng Supervisor - Public Works Department
Les Benoy, Engineer Group, Englneenng/Publlc Works
Transportation'
Gary McKenney, Transportation Planning Engineer, Public Works Department
Bnan Barnett, Transportation Supervisor, Public Works
John Dnscoll, Transportation, Public Works
FIre:
Gilbert Gordon, Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire & Life Safety Department
City Attorney C -J _ 11 . _ ~ _ _ -' )
Joe Leahy, City Attorney ~ ~ ~)
PLEASE REMEMBER. THIS IS NOT A COMPLETENESS REVIEW; THIS IS THE
ONLY REVIEW OF THE FINAL MASTER PLAN APPLICATION. THIS MEETING IS
SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 17,2008 @ 2.00 - 4.00 P.M. IN NW6. PLEASE ATTEND, IF
AT ALL POSSIBLE
All written comments must be sent to Gary Karp by June 17, 2008 by 5:00 p.m
Date ReceIved-
--. ..-, '"'it l' ."
, "~,'1,r' :'UN '1' i- '200s
'." '~,I, ,." r I.A .<..I..r ,,/
~:.i'_J.\', ..r"l),..-IV\ItlIVlCiA"V j//~
__ f)evlew~
'~ ~{~ ~..~/, 1 i.l-j ",Jfi
" + ~)..( ....~I ~...~ ] ~ \\
AGENDA
FINAL MASTER PLAN
REVIEW
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 FIFTH STREET
Conference Room NW6 (ESD AREA)
Staff Review' June 17, 2008 @ 2:00 - 4 00 pm.
1 FINAL MASTER PLAN #LRP2007-00028 VILLAGES @ MARCO LA MEADOWS
Assessor's Map 17-02-30-00 TL 1800
Assessor's Map 17-03-25-11 TL 2300
Address Vacant - Marcola Road/31st Street
EXisting Use CC/MDR/Nodal Dev Area/Commercial/Nodal Dev Area
Applicant submitted final master plans for the Villages @ Marcola Meadows
development
Planner Gary Karp
Gary has prepared three attachments which will help you through the review
process
1 A list of the conditions with persons responsible to review a particular condition
2 A copy of the staff report that addresses prevIous staff comments and reasons for
the conditions
3 A copy of Condition #27 with a concern about compliance with Item #5
Please note that the large plan sets are for your review convenience, they are the
same plan sets that are In the bound document.
"
OVERVIEW
FINAL MASTER PLAN REVIEW
TO REVIEWERS
FM GARY M KARP, SENIOR PLANNER
RE FINAL MASTER PLAN REVIEW
THE CONDITIONS BELOW WERE ATTACHED TO THE MASTER PLAN APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 20, 2007 AND MODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
DURING THE APPEALS DECISION ON JANUARY 28,2008
THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A RESPONSE TO EACH CONDITION AND EXPLANING EACH
RESPONSE IN FULL DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE ATTACHED PACKET, AND IN CONSIDERATION
OF EVERYONE'S SCHEDULE, I HAVE PREPARED AN ABBREVIATED LIST OF MASTER PLAN
CONDITIONS AND "ASSIGNED" THOSE PERSONS/DIVISIONS "I THINK" SHOULD REVIEW EACH
CONDITION AT OUR MEETING WE WILL GO THROUGH EACH CONDITION DURING THE
MEETING, WE CAN RESOLVE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING ANY CONDITION
The various conditions of approval are broken down Into the following categories
1. Conditions reaUlrlna compliance prior to Final Master Plan Approval (44)
#1,4,6, 7,8,9,10,11,12, 13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,33,34,
35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,49,50,51,52,&53
Note 19 of these conditions require a deed restriction
2 Conditions deferred to Phase 1 (8)
SubdivIsion Tentative Plan/Plat submittal ~,~, 26, 32, 45, 47, 48, & 54
Note Conditions 22, 27, 31, 36, 27, 38, & 39 which apply to Final Master Plan approval as
listed above, are Implemented In part or entirely dUring Phase 1
3 Conditions deferred to Phases 2. 3 and or 4 (1)
a Phase 2 I'ru
Note Conditions 16, 27, & 36 which apply to Final Master Plan approval as listed above, are
Implemented In part or entirely during Phase 2
b Phases 3 & 4
Note Condition 16 which applies to Final Master Plan approval as listed above, IS
Implemented In part or entirely during Phase 4
4 Condition deleted bY the Plannlna Commission _ (1)
MASTER PLAN CONDITION
#1 deed restnctlon
3
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
ThiS condition IS reqUired for Final
Master Plan a proyal
jfhls condlllon IS not regwred for Final
Master Plan a royal
hiS condition liS not re U1red for Flna
aster f;!filll'~ roval
TO BE REVIEWED BY
Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
#2 letter from ODOTl
Steve HopkinS Phase 1
Steve HopkinS ThiS condlllon wll
~wre bonding as [1art of Phase 1
A~
#4 deed restnctlon This condition IS required for Final Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan a roval
5 Metro Plan deSignation Zonln ifhls condition IS 'not re ulred for Flna teve HOl!klns Phase 1
Istnct Ie al1deschptlons aster Plan a fova
#6 deed restnctlon This condition IS required for Final Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan a roval
#7 deed restnctlon This condition IS reqUired for Final Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan ap roval
#8 resolution of open space Issues This condition IS reqUired for Final Gary Karp
Master Plan a roval
#9 deed restnctlon This condition IS reqUired for Final Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan a roval
#10 deed restnctlon This condition IS reqUired for Final Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan a roval
#11 Lowe's elevations This Condition IS required for Final Gary Karp
Master Plan approval
#12 deed restnctlon This condition IS reqUired for Final Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan approval
#13 deed restnctlon This condition IS reqUired for Final Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan approval
#15 deed restnctlon
#16 deed restnctlon
#17 deed restnctlon
#18 deed restnctlon
#19 deed restnctlon
#20 deed restnctlon
#21 revised street Widths
#22 Include construction of 2/3 street
Improvements along the entire property
fronta e of 31" Street on hasln Ian
#23 show 30 feet of paved Width (two
15-foot lanes) with no on-street parking
for the section of Belle Boulevard north
of the Parcel 6/7 access
#24 provide two 15-foot through lanes
and an 11-foot Wide left-turn lane where
needed for the section of Belle
Boulevard south of the Parcel 6/7
access
#25 resolve all Identified street Width
Issues In order to comply with SDC
Table 4 2-1
26' S'GDfriit a Street Name Chan e
This condition IS required for Final
Master Plan approval
This condition IS ,reqUIred for Final
Master Plan approval
This condition IS reqUired for Final
Master Plan a proval
This condition IS required for Final
Master Plan approval
This condition IS reqUired for Final
Master Plan a roval
This condllion IS reqUired for Final
Master Plan a roval
This condition IS required for Final
Master Plan a roval
This condition IS required for Final
Master Plan approval
This condition IS required for Final
Master Plan approval
This condition IS reqUired for Final
Master Plan approval
This condition IS required for Final
Master Plan approval
hiS condition IS not re Ulred for Flna
Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
B:te.v.e11i11iPRI0SIP.lfas:estmm
Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Public WorksfTransportatlon
Gilbert Gordon
Public WorksfTransportatlon
Public WorksfTransportatlon
Public WorksfTransportatlon
Public WorksfTransportatlon
1m Donovan/Steve Ho klns Phase 1
/
application I Master Plan aoorovalJ
#27. resolution of Marcola Road This condition IS required for Fmal Public WorksfTransportatlon
deslqn and financial security Issues Master Plan approval
#28 coord mate with L TD regardmg the This condition IS required for Fmal Public WorksfTransportatlon
location of required bus stops Master Plan approval
#29 Direct vehicular driveway access This condition IS required for Fmal Public WorksfTransportatlon
to 28th/31 'I Streets shall not be shown Master Plan approval
#30 deed restriction This condition IS required for Fmal Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan approval
#31 deed restriction This condition IS required for Fmal Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
Master Plan approval
~32 maintenance responsibility of t~ ~hlS condition IS not r~ulred for Fmal !';teve HORkms Phase 11
proposed private Qathways alongJ!!g aster Plan aQQroval
water featurel
#33 EWES crossmg agreement This condition IS required for Fmal Gary Karp
Master Plan approval
#34 deed restriction Note This condition IS required for Fmal Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
accessway maintenance IS a public Master Plan approval
responsibility
#35 accessway mamtenance Note This condition IS required for Fmal Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
This condition concerns those Master Plan approval
portions of the accessways that
encroach EWES's property and IS
addressed In the EWES Reyocable
License Agreement required In
Condition #33
#36 show the extent of bikeway This condition IS required for Fmal Gary Karp
Improvements on EWES propertv Master Plan approval Steve Hopkms Phases 11 ~
#37 sarlllary sewer study This condition IS required for Fmal Public Works Engmeerlng
Master Plan approval
#38 show the 10 mch public sewer This condition IS required for Fmal Public Works Engmeerlng
pipe on the westerly property Ime In a Master Plan approval
location outside of the enhanced
dramaqe swale
#39 sewer service Issues regarding This condition IS required for Fmal Gary Karp
the eXisting bUilding to be removed Master Plan approval
#40 revised dramage study This condition IS required for Fmal Public Works Engmeerlng
Master Plan approval
#41 revise the dramage study This condition IS reqUIred for Fmal Public Works Engmeerlng
recommendation that the minimum Master Plan approval
street qrade on the site be 464 38 feet
#42 supply drawdown results In the This condition IS required for Fmal Public Works Engmeerlng
drainage study for the two proposed Master Plan approval
detention ponds
#43 submit additional mformatlon This condition IS required for Fmal Public Works Engmeerlng
regarding the proposed swale along Master Plan approval
Marcola Road
#44 submit a revised street cross This condition IS required for Fmal Public Works Engmeerlng
section detail which shows area for a Master Plan approval
proposed roadside water qualltv swale
~~5 enter mto a mamtenance jThls condition IS not regUlred for Fmal ~:eve Hopkms Phase 1.b
agreement with the City for the ~ Master Plan approval I ubllc Works Engmeerlnq
located storm channel and associate '
"
This condition IS required for Final
Master Plan approval
Public Works Englneenng
teve ffioRklns P.nasen
ulilic WorKs !:in Ineemn
nlS"C6fW:litlon IS' n6t1t Ulred f6rdi;lna
aste~ P'lan ap.proyal
ThiS condition IS required for Final
Master Plan approval
teve l1Iop-Klns P.nase"~
ulilic WorKs En Ineemn
Public Works Englneenng
#52 submit a proposal to guarantee
that the PhaSing Plan can be achieved
ThiS condition IS reqUired for Final
Master Plan a roval
ThiS condition IS required for Final
I
Master Plan a roval
ThiS condition IS required for Final
Master Plan approval
Joe Leahy/Gary Karp
#51 PhaSing Plan
Gary Karp
#53 reconcile discrepancies between
Plan Sheets 7 and 8
5~ sulimlt lIie fdiloWlIlg Information
1) a p-e,mlt from lIie i'!irmy, (!lo,p-s 0
nglneers anazo~ IDS~ fo~ tlie relocate
.Itercourse ana worl< WllIillillli'
itlanas, 2.) tlie a=~
, ~tlgatlonZl'V1omtonng P.I~WS th '
atercourse, 3) a cop'y, 01 an
of!tlngency, liona ana an ex'p-Ianatlon,o
\idI"":.><!o',,""
0,"" comp-Iiance Willi lIie 1'V10mto[IPfj
Ian Will occur. wltli an" sUDsen'uenl
..,~ 1! ::1~^M ~
t)i3nge In ownersHIp- ove~ tlie Iifei~&h'1
aster. P.lan, ana 11') any, otlie~ condition
, r'"" ~~til-----
~' Rosea liy, elllier. lIie i'!irmy, 60rp-si~
().glneers or. IDSI! ffilie contlngenciL-,
_o_na ana lIie exp-Ianatlon of com Iiance
h'all to tlie satisfaction 01 tlie (!l,t
, 'itorney, ana lIie IDevelop-ment Se,Wlces
~Ir;ector. ana slialllie maae ai:! of'
dee_a le_sJllcJlon
Public Works Englneenng
Gary Karp
Joe Leah
Gary Karp
ATTACHMENT 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Applicant Satre Associates PC, Applicant, representing SC Springfield, LLC
Case Number ZON2007-00028
PrOject LocatIon Northwest Corner of Marcola Road and 28th/31" Streets
Assessor's Map# 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 01800 and 17-03-25-11, Tax Lot 02300
ZOning Community Commercial, Medium Density ReSidential, and Mixed Use Commercial
Metro Plan Designation Community Commercial, Medium Density ReSidential/Nodal Development
Area, and Commercial/Nodal Development Area
Application Submittal Date September 28, 2007
120 Day Review Time-Ime January 26,2008
Related Applications ZON 2005-00028, LRP 2006-00027, ZON 2006-00030, ZON 2006-00054 and
SUB 2007-00037
Request The applicant requests Master Plan approval for a phased, mixed-use development on 1003
acres formerly known as the "Pierce" property, now called the" Villages at Marcola Meadows" The
proposed development consists of a total of 518 homes on 54 7 gross acres, and a total of 449,600 square
feet of retail/office use on 45 6 gross acres There are 11 4 acres of proposed common open space
proposed
Site Map
Ott-~ ~
1
II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I I
The size ~f this staff report IS almost as large as the IMarcola Meadows development area This IS the last
major staff review and evaluation before the land IS dived by the SubdivIsion process and developed by
,
the Site Plan Review process Staff and the applicant have worked on the project for over two years
,
The applicant IS anxIous to obtain approval of this Master Plan application However, as staff stated In
the Planning Commission Transmission Memo, staff has Idenltfied two Issues the Planning Commission
should consider before making their deCISion I
1 Resolulton of Issues regarding the required Phasing Plan, and
I
SDC 5 13-105 says In part " Assure that mdlvldual phases of a development Will be coordmated with
,
each other "The matenals submitted by the applicant on September 28, 2007 did not resolve Issues
regarding the Phasing Plan The applicant did not create a relationship to the nodal aspect of this
master Plan application where the coordination of the residential and commercial development IS
,
essential The applicant also did not explain howl the residential development would be coordinated as
each phase developed Finally, the applicant did not address grading Issues for the entire resldenltal
portion of the site, which are essential to protecting adjacent property owners, who have expressed
these concerns at prevIous public heanngs Staff has discussed these Issues through out thiS staff
report Staff met with the applicant on Novemberi13th and again on November 21st After the last
meeting staff felt we had something to work with and generated the two opltons discussed on Pages 52
,
to 57 of thiS staff report Of the two options presented, staff prefers Option 2 because It establishes the
more logical and safe PhaSing Plan I
2 Resolution of Issues regarding the City's needs for the installation of roundabouts as opposed to
traffic Signals preferred by the applicant These Issues are discussed on Pages 35 to 37 of thiS staff
report I
In addition, several persons have testified about their concerns regarding what happens to "big box"
stores that close and remain vacant over time The Planning Commission may want to conSider the
follOWing condition of approval reqUlrmg an "Adaptive Reuse Agreement" with Lowes (See Attachment 9,
,
POSSible Master Plan ConditIOn #56) Adaptive reuse occurs when a bUilding or a site loses ItS onglnal
,
function, It may be pOSSible to save It from abandonment or demolition by adapting It to a new use The
Adaptive Reuse Agreement could require Lowes, after a certain penod of time, to either remove the
,
bUilding or redeSign the bUilding so that It would be ready for a number of new tenants
I
Finally, City staff members and representatives from other agencies who participate on the City'S
Development ReView Committee have reviewed thiS Master Plan application Based upon thiS reView, City
,
staff has concluded that thiS application, as conditioned, complies with the cntena of approval However, the
Planning Commission must detennlne that appropnate conditions of approval have been applied to thiS
,
application to guarantee quality development on thiS site over the life of thiS Master Plan The attached '
conditions are staffs recommendations These conditions may be subject to reVISion as requested by the
,
Planning Commission dunng the public heanng process based on both new Infonnatlon Introduced mto the
,
record and/or direction from the Planning Commission Itself
I
III SITE DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
I
The site consists of two properties Identified as Tax Lot 1800 of Lane County Assessor's Map 17-02-30-
,
00 and Tax Lot 2300 of Lane County Assessor's Map 17-03-25-11 Tax Lot 2300 was platted In 1994 as
Parcel 3 of land partition plat 94-P0491 A property line adjustment was recorded With Lane County In
,
1997 affecting the common boundary between parcels 2 and 3 of land partition plat 94-P0491 m so dOing
,
completing the current configuration of the development site (City of Springfield file# 97-02-029)
I
The site IS entirely Within Springfield's Urban Growth Boundary and City limits and IS located north of
,
Marcola Road and West of 28th Street The site has preViously been used for a vanety of agncultural
2
uses Currently the site contains a machine shop bUilding located near the southeast corner of the site,
which IS proposed to be removed pnor to development
A storm water drainage ditch (Pierce Ditch) bisects the site running from east to west, the site IS located
outside of both the 1 DO-year flood and 500-year flood areas Site topography IS generally very flat with
seasonal wetlands A small group of trees IS located along the site's east frontage and extends within the
Pierce Ditch
The site abuts residential development to the east (across 31st Street), west, south (across Marcola
Road), commercial development to the southwest, Industnal development to the southeast (across 28th
Street and Marcola Road), and undeveloped WI llama lane park land to the north (across the EWEB corndor
path)
1111 CURRENT PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
The City Council approved the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment applications (LRP 2006-
00027 and ZON 2006-00054) on June 18, 2007
Plan Deslanatlon
The Metro Plan Diagram applies multiple plan deSignations to the development site Medium DenSity
Residential, Commercial, and Commercial/ Nodal Development and IS summanzed In Figure 1
Figure 1 EXisting Metro Plan DeSignation (As amended per Ordinance No 6195, June 18, 2007)
Plan DeSignation Acres
Medium Oenslty Residential/NO' 547
Commercial 196
Commercial/NO' 260
Total 1003
/NO = Nodal Deve/opment Area 80 7
Zonlna DistriCts
The OffiCial ZOning Map applies multiple ZOning Olstncts to the development site Medium Oenslty
ReSidential, Community Commercial, and Mixed-Use Commercial and IS summanzed In Figure 2
Figure 2 EXisting ZOning DistriCts (As amended per Ordinance No 6196, June 18, 2007)
Zoning District
Acres
Medium Oenslty ReSidential
Community Commercial
Mixed-Use Commercial
Total
547
196
260
1003
IIV PROJECT BACKGROUND
In July, 2005, the Martin Co submitted a Oevelopment Issues Meeting application (ZON 2005-00028) to
generally diSCUSS a proposed commercial/residential development on the development site
In May, 2006, Satre ASSOCiates, PC submitted a Pre-Application Report application (ZON 2006-
00030) as the reqUired prereqUisite for Master Plan approval (SOC 5 13-115B) Staff had a
3
number of concems about that proposal and contracted with Crandall Arambula, a Planning
,
consultant In Portland, for a peer review (See Attachment 7) The application was placed on
,
hold until approval of the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendments occurred
I
In September, 2006, Satre Associates, PC submitted the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment
applications (LRP 2006-00027 and ZON 2006-00051) These applications were determined to be complete
for review on January 11, 2007 The City Council approved these applications on June 18, 2007
(Ordinance Nos 6195 and 6196) Master Plan approval IS required by terms of Condition #1 of Ordinance
No 6196 (Zoning Map Amendment) I
On July 20,2007, Satre Associates, PC resubmitted the Pre-Application Report application The majority
,
of Crandall Arambula's recommendations have been Incorporated Into the current proposal
I
On September 6, 2007, City staff held a meeting with the applicant's representatives and Interested
,
outside agencies to review the Pre-Application Report application
I
On September 24, 2007, the Pre-Application Report staff report was Issued
I
On September 28, 2007, the applicant submitted this Master Plan application
I
On October 10, 2007, this Master Plan application was accepted as complete for review
I
I V APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I
ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council
earlier this year With 14 conditions of approval Thelappllcant has submitted information addreSSing these
conditions The ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance conditions of approval are In "dallcs" The applicant's
,
response IS In "bold ItaliCS" Most of these conditions relate directly to the Master Plan criteria of approval
and In order to reduce redundancy, Will be addressed In that section of this staff report
I
STAFF NOTE The phase numbering on this Master Plan application IS slightly different from the phasing
,
shown In the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment submittals The phasing referenced In staffs
response to these conditions of approval IS based onlthe phasing proposed In this Master Plan application
STAFF NOTE Phase 1 of this Master Plan application as described by the applicant In Plan Sheet 7 and
as discussed below depicts Infrastructure necessary to prepare the site for initial development activity which
Includes the construction of Martin Drive from Marcola Road to 31" Street, the construction of Belle Blvd
from 28th Street to Marlin Dnve, construction of the off-site traffic mitigation Improvements at the Eugene-
Springfield Highway east bound off-ramp at Mohawk Blvd, construction of the shared access drives
connecting Parcel 1 to Martin Drive, Belle Blvd, and Marcola Road, construction of the greenway from 31 st
,
Street to Martin Drive, construcuon of stormwater quantity and quality faCIlities as required, construction of
,
associated backbone utilities (water, electrical lines, etc ), establishment of rough subgrade for Parcel 1, and
,
installation and maintenance of erOSion control measures for the above Phase 1 Will be Initiated by a
,
SubdiVISion Tentative Plan that Will diVide the site Into 11 lots (Plan Sheet 8) Phase 1 will Include additional
,
construction as condluoned elsewhere In thiS staff report
I
Condition 1 Zonmg Map Amendment Ordmance 6196 The submittal and approval of a Master
,
Plan application pnor to any development on the development site shaff be reqUired
I
Applicant's Response "The submittal of thiS applicatIon and the prevIous Pre-ApplicatIon Report
(ZON 2006-00030) shall satIsfy thiS conditIon" I
Staff's Response/Fmdmg Staff concurs With the applicant's response to the "submittal" portion of
Condition 1 However, the word "approval" IS highlighted because It IS up to the Planning Commission to
I
approve or deny thiS application Staffs recommendallon to the Planning Commission IS approval, With
4
conditions Based on staffs response, Condition 1 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 will be
met If and when the Planning Commission approves thiS Master Plan application
Condition 2. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submittal of documentation from the
Department of State Lands and! or the Army Corps of Engmeers with the Master Plan applIcatIon
demonstratmg the eXlstmg dramage ditch IS not a regulated watercourse/ wetland, and If necessary,
submittal of a wetland delmeatlon for other wetlands that may be on the development sIte
Applicant's Response "The eXlstmg dramage dItch IS not a regulated watercourse/wetland by the
Department of State Lands, however, the Army Corps of Engmeers does regulate the dramage as an
'other water' "
Staff's Response/Fmdmg The Pierce Ditch and wetlands on the site are addressed under Master Plan
criterion 5 13-125E beginning on Page 57 of thiS staff report As condlltoned under that criterion,
Condition 2 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met
Condition 3 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submittal of a Master Plan applIcation that
mcorporates the relocation of the eXlstmg dramage dItch and conversIon to a majOr water feature that Will be
an mtegral part of the proposed development area shall be reqUired The construction of the entire water
feature must be completed as part of the Phase 1 development 'The appl1cant has stated that Phase 1 Will
mclude the home Improvement center ThIS means that thIS and all other condItions referencmg "Phase 1"
must be mcorporated mto proposed Master Plan Phase 1 development
Applicant's Response "The construction of the entIre water feature IS to be mcluded wlthm Phase
1 As such thIS condItion IS satisfied" See Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan for more mformatlon "
Staff's Response/Fmdmg The relocation of the Pierce Ditch and construction of the water feature that
Will be a functional part of the drainage system for thiS site are addressed under criterion 5 13-125C
beginning on Page 30 of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 3 of
ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met
Condition 4 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submittal of a Master Plan appl1catlon that
addresses compl1ance with the Dnnkmg Water Overlay Dlstnct standards m SDC SectIOn 3 3-200 and how
these regulations Will be appl1ed for each proposed phase
Applicant's Response "The applIcant addresses thIS standard under the dISCUSSIon of SDC SectIon
3 3-200 below As such thIS condItion IS satisfIed"
Staff's Response/Fmdmg The applicant or future owners must submit a Drinking Water Overlay District
application concurrently With the Site Plan ReView applicalton that IS required for proposed Phase 2
Addlllonal Drinking Water Overlay District applications Will be reqUired for any additional proposed
development Within the commercial zOning district where materials listed In SDC Section 3 3-200 are
stored The Drinking Water Overlay District IS discussed under criterion 5 13-125B beginning on Page 12
of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 4 of ZOning Map Amendment
Ordinance 6196 can be met
Condition 5 Zonmg Map Amendment Ordmance 6196 Submittal of a Master Plan application that
addresses the relationship of the proposed development to Wlllamalane's future park on the north Side of
the EWEB Bike Path and an explanation of any coordmatlOn efforts WIth Wlllamalane concernmg the sltmg
and development of the future park
Applicant's Response "The applicant met WIth representatives from Willamalane, the CIty of
Sprmgfield, Spnngfield School Dlstnct and EWES on September 13, 2007 At thIS meeting
Willamalane personnel mdlcated that there were no reqUIrements of the applIcant regardmg
Wl/lamalane's property other than to not worsen storm dramage "
5
Staff's Response/Flndlng Condition #5 of the zone change DecIsion required the applicant to address
coordination with Wlllamalane concerning "siting and development of the future park" The applicant
correctly states that he has met with WI llama lane on'these Issues However, the Intent of the condition IS
I
to proVide for ongoing coordination regarding speCific park deSign Issues In order to fully meet that Intent,
I
WI llama lane recommends that the Master Plan Include language to the effect that, as condllioned below,
the park coordination Issue portion of Condllion 5 of:Zonlng Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 has been
met Wlllamalane's storm drainage Issue IS addressed under criterion 5 13-125C on beginning Page 30
,
of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS portion of Condition 5 of ZOning Map
Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #1 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
deed restriction to the satisfaction of the Wlllamalane: Park and Recreation Director stating that the
applicant or any successor owners shall give WI llama lane Park and Recreation District an opportUnity to
,
review and comment on future plans for speCific Improvements to the proposed Oak Prairie Park, In order
,
to better ensure that the deSign IS compatible With and complimentary to planned Improvements at
Wlllamalane's Pierce Park dUring the life of the Master Plan
I
Condition 6 Zomng Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmIttal of a Master Plan appltcatlon
that addresses coordmatlon WIth EWEB to determme If any easements are reqUIred m order to cross the
EWEB BIke Path to access the future park
Staff's Response/Flndlng The EWE8 access Issu,e IS complicated The access Issue IS addressed
under criterion 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of this staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff
,
report, Condition 6 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met
I
Condition 7 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmIttal of a Master Plan appltcatlon that
shows the proposed home Improvement center bUlldmg extenor deSIgn SImIlar to the eXlstmg bUlldmg m
,
Scottsdale, Anzona or a bUlldmg deSIgn that compIles WIth the current bUlldmg deSIgn standards m SDC
SectIon 3 2-400 I
Applicant's Response "The applicant has submitted Within the General Retail section of
,
Attachment " illustrative OverView the proposed home Improvement center bUilding extenor design
,
that IS Similar to the bUilding In Scottsdale, Anzona As such thiS condition IS satisfied"
I
Staff's Response/Flndlng Staffs Intent was to Incorporate bUilding deSign elements Similar to those In
the Campus IndustrlallDlstrlct, the former zOning district for thiS portion of the Site, andlor the MUC
District Staff did not want Just another "big box" Without any Significant deSign features Home
I
Improvement center deSign Issues are discussed under crltenon 5 13-1258 beginning on Page 12 of thiS
,
staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 7 of Zoning Map Amendment
Ordinance 6196 can be met I
Condition 8 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submttlal of a Master Plan appltcatlon that
,
demonstrates that the reSIdentIal development WIll occur at not less than 12 dwellmg Units per net acre
I
Applicant's Response "Sheet 6 shows the proposed Site plan for the Marcola Meadows Master Plan
I
The sheet show that there are two residential Villages composed of Single-family homes and town
I
homes A total of 518 homes are proposed on 39 net acres, or 13 2 umts per net acre As such thiS
condition IS satisfied"
Staff's Response/Flndlng The applicant complies With the minimum reSidential denSity reqUIrements for
a deSignated mode The resldenlial denSity Issue IS discussed undercnterlon 513-1258 beginning on
I
Page 12 of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 8 of ZOning Map
Amendment Ordinance 6196 has been met
6
Condition 9 Zomng Map Amendment Ordmance 6196 SubmIttal of prellmmary desIgn plans wIth
the Master Plan applIcation addressmg the proposed mItigatIon of Impacts dIscussed m the T1A The plans
shall show the proposed traffic control changes allowmg left-tums from the eastbound ramp center lane at
the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk Boulevard! Eugene-Spnngfield Highway mtersectlon The mtent of this
condItion IS to have the applicant demonstrate to ODOT that the proposed mitIgation IS feasible from an
engmeenng perspectIve and wIll be constructed on a schedule that IS acceptable to ODOT ProvIded that
constructIOn of the proposed mitIgatIon IS determmed to be feasible, then dunng Master Plan revIew and
approval a condItIon shall be applted reqUlnng the mdlgatlon to be accompltshed pnor to the temporary
occupancy of any use m Phase 1 of the development
Applicant's Response "Attachment 3 3, Marcola Meadows MItIgatIon Traffic Englneenng Study
shows the proposed prelIminary desIgn plans showing the proposed mitIgatIon of Impacts
dIscussed In the TIA The plans show that the proposed traffIC control changes allowing left-turns
from the eastbound ramp center lane at the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk Boulevard! Eugene-
Springfield HIghway intersectIon are feasIble As such thIS condItion IS satisfied "
Staff's Response/Fmdmg For the record, the Phase 1 as referenced In Condition 9 IS Phase 2
development as proposed In the Master Plan applicalion The applicant has submitted only a feasibility
study addreSSing traffic Impacts at the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk Boulevard/Eugene-Sprlngfield
Highway intersection The Intent of this condition IS to have the applicant demonstrate to OOOT that the
proposed mitigation IS feasible from an engineering perspective and Will be constructed on a schedule
that IS acceptable to OOOT ProVided that construction of the proposed mitigation IS determined to be
feasible as determined by OOOT, then concurrently with the SubdiVIsion Tentative Plan reqUired for
Phase 1, the applicant shall submit the feasibility letter signed by OOOT OUrlng the Site Plan Review
application for Phase 2, a condition Will be applied reqUiring the mitigation required by OOOT to be
accomplished prior to final occupancy of the home Improvement center The term "final occupancy" IS
used because there may be no need for a "temporary occupancy" ThiS IS actually to the advantage of
the applicant As conditioned below, Condition 9 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 IS met
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #2 Concurrent With the SubdiVIsion Tentative Plan application reqUired
for proposed Phase 1, the applicant shall submit a letter from OOOT stating that plans for the eastbound
ramps of the Mohawk Boulevard/Eugene-Sprlngfield Highway intersection plans have been approved
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #3 Construction of the reqUired mitigation Improvements at the sole
expense of the applicant and shall be complete and accepted by OOOT prior to final occupancy of the
proposed home Improvement center shown In Phase 2
Condition 10 Zomng Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submittal of a Master Plan applIcatIon
that mcorporates a "Development Phasmg Plan" shall be reqUired m order to comply WIth SDC Section
[513-120(12)J The mtent of this condItion IS to a) Address the "mternal tnp" Issue by reqUlnng a certam
percentage of the residentIal portIon of the site to be developed With a SimIlar percentage of the commercIal
portIon The speCIfic percentages Will be made part of the approved Master Plan, and b) Ensure that, for
each type of land use, the amounts proposed do not exceed those shown m Table 4C of the T1A
Applicant's Response "Sheet 7, PhaSing Plan shows the development phaSing plan Phase 1 WIll
Incorporate the development of Martin Dnve, Belle Boulevard, the Internal dnve network that WIll
connect to the home Improvement store and the Open Space/Common Area that separates the
commercIal and reSIdential parts of the development Phase 2 Includes the development of the
home Improvement store Phase 3 Includes the development of 87 Single-famIly resIdences located
adjacent to Belle Boulevard, north of Marlin Dnve east towards 31st Street Phase 4 Includes the
remaining development of resIdential and commercIal areas In conformance with the Internal tnp
dlstnbutlon table within the Master Plan Traffic Impact AnalYSIS (Attachment 3 1) As such thIS
condItIon IS satIsfied"
7
Staff's Response/Flndlng The phasing component of this Master Plan submittal has been the most
difficult Issue to resolve dUring the review of this appllcallon The applicant has submitted a number of
phasing scenarios whIch are addressed under criterion 5 13-1250 on beginning Page 52 of this staff
report As conditIoned elsewhere In this staff report, 'Condition 10 of Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance
6196 can be met I
Condition 11 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196: Submittal of a Master Plan applicatIOn
,
that shows the entire length of the collector street [Martm DnveJ from Marcola Road to V Street bemg
constructed as part of Phase 1 I
Applicant's Response "Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan shows that the collector street, Martin Dnve, IS to be
developed wlthm Phase 1 As such thIS cond'ttonl's sattsfied"
Staff's Response/Flndlng The applicant has agreed to construct the entire length of proposed Martin
I
Drive as part of Phase 1 Streets are discussed under criterion 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of this
,
staff report As conditioned elsewhere In this staff report, Condition 11 of ZOning Map Amendment
Ordinance 6196 can be met I
Condition 12 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmIttal of a Master Plan application
that shows the constructIon of all streets selVmg the CC and MUC portions of the development sIte bemg
constructed shall be reqUIred as part of Phase 1 I
Applicant's Response "Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan shows that all streets, Martin Dnve, Belle Boulevard
,
and the mternal dnve network shall be constructed as part of Phase 1 As such thIS condltton IS
sattsfied " I
Staff's Response/Flndlng The applicant has agreed to construct all streets and the Internal drive
network as part of Phase 1 Streets and drives are discussed under criterion 5 13-125C beginning on
I
Page 30 of this staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thIs staff report, Condition 12 of ZOning Map
Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met I
Condition 13. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmIttal of a Master Plan applIcatIon
,
that shows proposed connectIVIty between the reSIdential and commercIal development areas
I
Applicant's Response "The resldenttal and commercIal areas of the development are connected vIa
,
a pnvate network of pathways that surround the common/open space areas of the development site,
I
see Sheet 5, Master Plan lIIustratton for more mformatlon The network of pathways combmed with
street SIdewalks, commercIal area SIdewalks and'connecttng accessway to the eXlsttng resldenttal
I
area to the west creates a convenient and effICIent method of pedestnan and bIcyclIst movement on
,
the development sIte As such thIS conditIon IS satIsfied"
I
Staff's Response/Flndlng The applicant demonstrates connectivity via a private network of pathways
t
between reSidential and commercial areas and Within proposed open spaces The pathwayslaccessways
I
are discussed under criterion 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of thiS staff report As conditioned
I
elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 13 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met
I
Condition 14 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 The Master Plan shall be submitted
,
wlthm one year of the CIty CounCIl approval of these applicatIons [Ordmance Numbers 6195 and 6196,
approved June 18, 2007J
Applicant's Response The Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications (Ordinance Numbers
6195 and 6196) were approved June 18, 2007 With thiS submittal thiS condition IS satisfied
I
Staff's Response/Flndlng ThiS Master Plan appll~allon was submitted to the City on September 28,
2007 ConditIon 14 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 has been met
8
STAFF NOTE In addition, Section 4 of Ordmance 6196 states "The legal descnptlOn of the ent/fe
property IS specified m Exhibit B The proposed zonmg IS shown on the map m Exhibit C The specific
boundanes of the zonmg dlstncts shall be determmed as a conditIOn of approval of the reqUired Master
Plan"
Applicant's Response "The applIcant mtends to finalIze the legal descnptlon for the amended
zomng dlstncts WIth the first land dIVISIon appllcatton (part/tton or sUbdIVISIon) after Master Plan
Approval as reqUired by Sectton 4 of Ordmance Number 6196 (June 18, 2007) The Spnngfield CIty
CouncIl approved Metro Plan amendments that desIgnated 54 7 acres MedIum-DensIty Resldenttal
and 45 6 acres CommercIal (perOrdmance No 6195, June 18, 2007) In addltton, all of the Medlum-
DenSIty Resldenttal and 26 acres of the CommercIal receIved the Nodal Development Overlay (80 7
acres) Zonmg classifIcatIons Spnngfield Crty CouncIl approved Zonmg classificatIon amendments
that deSIgnated 54 7 acres MedIum-DensIty ResIdentIal, 196 acres Commumty CommercIal, and
260 acres Mixed-Use Commercial (per Ord No 6196, June 18, 2007)."
Staff's Response/Flndlng Staff allowed the final plan deSignation and zOning boundanes to be delayed
and conditioned under the Master Plan application review process Finalization of these boundanes IS
discussed undercntenon 513-125A beginning on Page 11 of this staff report As conditioned elsewhere
In thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS application, the requirement In Section 4 of ZOning
Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met
CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that all of the conditions of approval attached to ZOning Map
Amendment Ordinance 6196, either have been met, met as conditioned In thiS section or can be
conditioned to be met or other sections of thiS staff report
I VI MASTER PLAN APPLICABILITY
SDC Section 5 13-110 states
"The Master Plan process applies when Imtlated by an applicant when the followmg cntena are met
A The development area IS under one ownershIp, or
B If the development area has multIple owners, then all owners of record have consented m wntmg to
the Master Plan review process, and
C The development area IS 5 acres or greater
D Notwlthstandmg the foregomg, the Director may determme that the proposed development IS
mappropnate as a Master Plan and the applicatIon WIll not be accepted"
Applicant's Response "The submIttal of thIS Master Plan applIcatIon was required by terms of
CondItIon #1 of Ordmance No 6196 (Zonmg Map Amendment, June 18, 2007) Only SubsectIons A
and C Sectton 513-110B), and the development sIte IS larger than five acres (SDC SectIon 515-
110C), therefore, the proposal meets Master Plan applIcabIlity reqUirements establIshed m SDC
Sectton 5 13-110 "
Staff's Response/Flndlng Staff concurs With the applicant's response concerning Master Plan
applicability
I VII MASTER PLAN REVIEW
SDC Section 513-115 states
9
"A Master Plans are reviewed under Type III procedure, unless the Director determines that the
,
application should be reviewed as a Type IV decIsion by the City Council due to the complexity of
the application I
B A Pre-ApplicatIOn Report applicatIOn as speCIfIed In Section 5 1-100 IS reqUired pnor to submittal
of a Master Plan applicatIOn" I
Applicant's Response "The Marcola Meadows Master Plan shall be revIewed as a Type III
applIcatIon as determined by the Planning Director per SDC SectIon 5 13-115(A) A Pre-
,
ApplIcatIon Report was submItted July 20, 2007 and a staff report was Issued September 24, 2007
,
lIsting prevIous condItIons of approval per Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 (June 18,
2007) and addItIonal submIttal reqUIrements (ZON 2006-00030) "
I
Staff's Response/Flndlng Staff determined that thiS Master Plan applicatIon should be reViewed as a
,
Type III review Staff concurs with the applicant's response concerning review type and the submittal of a
Pre-Application Report appllcalion I
I VIII MASTER PLAN BASIC UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS
I
Staff Response/Flndlng SDC Section 5 13-135, Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule, uses the
term "underlYing assumptions" when an applicant wl~hes to modify an approved Master Plan Proposed
modlficalions are reViewed based on the Intensity of their affects on the baSIC underlYing assumptions
,
resulting In review from Type I (staff deCISion, Without notice) through Type III (Planning Commission public
heanng) I
On November 20, 2007 staff asked the Planning Commission to consider, and then direct staff to utilize the
,
follOWing as baSIC underlYing assumptions for thiS Master Plan application 1) streets, 2) nodal reqUIrements,
,
3) land uses, 4) phaSing, 5) stormwater management, 6) sanitary sewers, and 7) grading The Planning
Commission's approval of the baSIC underlYing assumptions gives staff more certainty up front when
,
determining the review process for a Master Plan modification Since the baSIC underlYing assumptions
,
have been approved pnor to the complelion of thiS staff report, they Will be used here too when staff finds It
necessary I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #4 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
,
deed restnctlon to the salisfaclion of the City Attomey and Development Services Director stating that the
applicant or successor owners shall address baSIC underlYing assumptions approved by the Planning
Commission when applYing for a Master Plan modification as speCified In SDC Section 5 13 135
I
IIX NOTICE I
SDC 5 2-115 states
"A MaIled NotIce Where reqUired, notIce of a publiC heanng Will be sent by mall at least 20 days before
,
the date of the heanng If two public heanng!, are reqUired, notice may be sent 10 days before the
first heanng The mB/led notice Will be sent to the applicant and the owners of record of the subject
,
property, all property owners and occupants Within 300 feet of the subject property, the appropnate
,
neighborhood aSSOCiation, and any person who submits a wntten request to receIve notIce In
,
additIon, the applicant shall post one sIgn, approved by the Director, on the subject property
InformatIon pertaining to property ownershIp shall be obtained from the most recent property tax
assessment role
B Newspaper Notice - QuaSI-JudiCial and legIslative land use deCISions NotIce shall also be
published In a newspaper of general CirculatIon
10
Staffs Response/Fmdmg Notice of the November 20, 2007 Planning Commission public hearing was
mailed to property owners and reSidents, as well as those on the "Interested Person's Llsf' staff established
for the Metro Plan and ZOning Map amendment applications on November 1, 2007 In accordance with
Subsection A ,above Newspaper notice was also published on November 13, 2007 In accordance With
Subsection B , above
I X MASTER PLAN CRITERIA OF APPROVAL
SDC Secllon 5 13-125 states
"A Master Plan may be approved If the Plannmg Commission finds that the proposal conforms
with all of the followmg approval cnterla In the event of a conflict with approval cntena m this
Subsection, the more specrfic reqUirements apply
A The zonmg of the property shall be consistent With the Metro Plan diagram and/or
applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan Dlstnct map, and Conceptual Development
Plan,
B The request, as conditioned, shall conform to applicable Spnngfield Development Code
reqUirements, Metro Plan poltcles, Refinement Plan, Plan Dlstnct, and Conceptual
Development Plan poltcles
C Proposed on-site and off-site Improvements, both publtc and pnvate, are suffiCient to
accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacity reqUirements of
publiC factlitles plans, and provIsions are made to assure construction of off-Site
Improvements m conjunction With a schedule of the phasmg
D The request shall proVide adequate gUidance for the deSign and coordmatlon of future
phases,
E PhYSical features, mcludmg but not Itmlted to steep slopes With unstable sailor geologiC
conditions, areas With susceptibility to floodmg, slgnrficant clusters of trees and shrubs,
watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated nparlan areas, wetlands,
rock outcroppmgs and open spaces and areas of hlstonc and/or archaeological
slgmficance as may be specrfied m Section 3 3-900 or ORS 97 740-760,358905-955
and 390 235-240 shall be protected as specrfied m thiS Code or m State or Federal law,
and
F Local pUblIC facllttles plans and local street plans shall not be adversely Impacted by the
proposed development"
The 6 crltena of approval are addressed below
rCRITERION 5 13-125A 1 "The zonmg of the property shall be consistent With the Metro Plan diagram
and/or appltcable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan Dlstnct map, and Conceptual Development Plan,
Applicant's Response "The applIcant Intends to finalize the legal descnptlon for the amended
zoning dlstncts WIth the fIrst land diVISIon applIcatIon (partItIon or subdIVIsion) after Master Plan
Approval as reqUIred by SectIon 4 of Ordinance Number 6196 (June 18, 2007) whIch states 'The
legal descrlptJon of the entire property IS specIfIed In ExhIbIt B The proposed zoning IS shown on
the map In EXhIbIt C The precIse boundaries of the zomng dIstricts described In ExhIbIt A shall
be determined as a condItIon of approval of the reqUIred Master Plan' SpringfIeld CIty CouncIl
approved Metro Plan amendments that deSIgnated 54 7 acres MedIum-DensIty ReSIdentIal and
45 6 acres CommercIal (per Ordinance No 6195, June 18, 2007) In addItIon, all of the MedlUm-
DenSIty ReSIdentIal and 26 acres of the CommercIal receIved the Nodal Development Overlay (80 7
11
acres) ZOning classIfIcatIOns Sprmgfleld CIty CouncIl approved ZOning classIficatIon
L
amendments that desIgnated 54 7 acres MedlUmjDenslty ResIdentIal, 196 acres Community
CommercIal, and 260 acres MIxed-Use CommercIal (per Ord No 6196, June 18, 2007) As stated
,
above the fmallzatIon of the zonmg boundanes will occur as a condItIon of Master Plan approval"
I
Staff's Response/Fmdmg Staff concurs With the applicant's response because the zOning IS consistent
With the Metro Plan designation There IS no Refinement Plan, Plan Dlstnct map, or Conceptual
,
Development Plan that applies to thIs site The appropnate timing for the finalization of the zoning and
,
plan boundanes are dunng the land divIsion process which requires the services of a professional land
,
surveyor Staff addressed thiS Issue previously as p,art of the discussion on Section 4 of Ordinance 6196
Based on staffs response, as conditioned below, cntenon 5 13-125A can be met
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #5 Concurrently, IWlth the submittal of the SubdiVISion Tentative Plan
application that IS reqUired for proposed Phase 1, the applicant shall submit the reqUired legal
,
descnptlons to the satisfaction of the City Surveyor for the approved Master Plan diagram and ZOning Map
amendments I
CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned, cntenon 513-125A has been met
I
rCRITERION 513-125B 1 "The request as conditioned shall conform to applicable Sprmgfield
,
Development Code reqUirements, Metro Plan poliCies, Refinement Plan, Plan Dlstnct, and
Conceptual Development Plan policies"
STAFF NOTE The SDC requirements referenced In thiS cntenon are related to those standards that
are necessary for the review and approval of thiS Master Plan application contained In SDC Chapters 3
,
and 5, but are typically outSide of the normal development standards that are contained In SDC Chapter
4, which are referenced and evaluated undercntenon 513-135C, below Applicable Metro Plan poliCies,
,
Refinement Plan, Plan DiStriCt, and Conceptual Development Plan poliCies Will be addressed under thiS
cntenon I
Applicant's Response "The followmg demonstrates the proposal's conformance WIth the above
,
cntenon for Master Plan approval ThIS sectIon IS broken down to address the applicable goals
,
and polICIes m vanous relevant plans, as well as, applicable statutes and admmlstratlve rules, and
relevant portIons of the Spnngfield Development Code"
APPLICABLE SDC REQUIREMENTS
Applicant's Response "The following are sectIons from the Sprmgfleld Development Code (SDC)
,
applIcable to thIS Master Plan applicatIon and are CIted WIth fmdmgs demonstratIng the project's
conformance WIth these SDC reqUIrements and the above cntenon "
RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS
SDC SECTION 3 2-205 - ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
I
Applicant's Response "The Master Plan contams approXImately 54 7 gross acres on-sIte m the
MDR zonmg dlstnct (39 net acres) SDC SectIon 3 2-205B reqUIres that reSIdentIal denSItIes m thIS
,
dIstrIct range from more than 10 to 20 Units per developable acre The nodal development
,
standards of TransPlan reqUIre that the denSIties be a mInimum of 12 Units per developable acre
,
The Cluster SubdIVISIon reqUIres that the development not exceed the maxImum allowed wlthm
thezonmg dlstnct, Ie, 20 Units per developable 'acre As referenced m SDC SectIon 513-120 F of
L
thIS submIttal and Illustrated on Plan Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon, the VIllages at Marcola
,
Meadows Master Plan denSItIes are wlthm the range allowed m MDR dlstncts Because the Master
Plan demonstrates that housmg can be prOVIded m suffiCIent quantItIes to eaSIly exceed the
,
mInimum denSIty and number of Units outlmed above, and thus meet the denSIty reqUIrements
12
establIshed m SDC SectIon 3 2-2058 , the Metro Plan, and TransPlan thIs applIcatIon IS consIstent
wIth thIs standard"
Staff Response/Flndlng SDC Section 32-2056 establishes the Medium Density DIstrict The MDR
density range IS from 10 to 20 dwelling Units per net developable acre The Nodal Development Area
Overlay deslqnatlon* applies to the entire portion of the site that IS zoned and designated MDR, as well as
that portion zoned MUC, approximately 80 acres Because development within a node must occur at
least 12 dwelling Units per net developable acre, this shall be the minimum development density for the
MDR portion of this site The applicant has stated In the response to SDC Section 32-210, below that
the minimum development density for the MDR portion of the site will be 13 3 dwelling Units per net
developable acre This Master Plan demonstrates that the resIdential portion of the site can be proVided
In sufficient quantities to eaSily exceed the minimum density of 12 dwelling Units per net acre and
therefore complies with SDC Section 32-205
'ST AFF NOTE A discussion On the differences between the Nodal Development Area Overlay and the
Nodal Development Overlay District Will occur on Page 22 of this staff report
SDC SECTION 3 2-210- SCHEDULE OF USE CATEGORIES
Applicant's Response "Uses proposed m the MDR-zoned portIons of the site mclude those
reSIdentIal uses that are permItted outnght and/or are subject to specIal use proVIsIons for cluster
subdIvIsIons WhIle the concepts Illustrated on Plan Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon and
Attachments 1, illustratIve OvervIew and Attachment 2, DesIgn GUldelmes, were developed to
meet the vanous provIsIons for smgle-famlly and townhouse housmg contamed m the Code,
these should not be taken to represent a specifIC development proposal or to establIsh a
reqUIrement that future reSIdentIal development mIrror one of these concept IllustratIons
However, adherence to the specIfIc development standards m SectIon 3 2-200, and other
applIcable SDC prOVIsIons, WIll be consIstent WIth future subdIVISIon submIttals consIstent WIth
thIS Master Plan"
,
The applicant also states "F The densIty or mtenslty of proposed uses The prevIous Metro Plan
DIagram and ZOning Map amendment applIcations referred to a development scenano to proVIde a
vIsual aId for the approval process Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon, IS the development scenano,
and Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan IS the proposed development phasmg for the Marcola Meadows Master
Plan Proposed residential densities fall wlthm ranges allowed by Code (see DISCUSSion under
Neighborhood Comments, Comment 2, above, for more information on allowed density) Housmg
densities wlthm the site WIll be a function of the ultimate design types selected by future bUIlders
However, the concept proposal Illustrates the ability to develop reSidential housmg densIties wlthm
the range allowed for nodal development, MedIUm Density ReSidential (MDR) and Cluster
SubdiVISion (applicable to smgle-famlly Units) development The concept mcludes a total of 247
townhouses With parkmg to the rear of the Units and wlthm pnvate dnves/ alleys In addition, a total
of 271 detached smgle-famlly Units are proVided With some parkmg proVided at the rear of the Unit
wlthm publiC alleys The Master Plan Identifies that 518 Units are proposed wlthm two VIllages
consisting of smgle-famlly detached houses (271 units, 121 Units per net acre) and attached
townhouse units (247unlts, 15 0 Units per net acre) The smgle-famlly detached Units are assumed to
average 1,900 square feet (sq ft) per Unit (and range from approXimately 1,480 sq ft. to
approXimately 2,100 sq ft) The townhouse Units average approXImately 1,700 sq ft The overall
net density of the reSidential VIllages IS 13 3 Units per net acre m compliance With the nodal
development and medIUm density reSidential standards The applicant notes that If developed to
the maximum that the Code allows wlthm the MedIUm-DenSity ReSidential Zone a total of 780 Units
are pOSSible, yet only 730 Units are pOSSIble WIth the reqUIred tnp cap (see T1A for more
mformatlon) "
Staff Response/Flndlng Single-family dwellings and townhouses are listed as permitted uses In SDC
Section 3 2-210 Consequently, the proposed reSidential uses are consistent With SDC Section 32-210
However, what IS being reViewed and evaluated In thiS Master Plan application Includes a mix of housing
13
types and the location of housing In respect to eXisting adjacent residential development The mix as
,
submitted Includes 271 detached single-family hous,?s (beginning In the east portion of the Site, stretching
to the west, just south of the EWEB Bike Path) and 247 attached townhouses south of Martin Drive and
,
north of the proposed commercial development) Upon Master Plan approval, thiS will be the authOrized
reSidential mix The TIA approved dUring the Metro ~Ian diagram and Zoning Map amendments did place
a limitation of 730 dwelling Units based on the required trip cap Nevertheless, based on the Master Plan
,
BaSIC UnderlYing Assumptions approved by the Planning CommiSSion on November 20, 2007, and
I
because the adjacent reSidents have raised IIvabllltyl'ssues dUring thiS public hearing process and dUring
the public hearings for the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning map amendments, thiS Issue must be
addressed by a condition of approval Based on staff's response, as conditioned below, thiS application
complies With SDC Section 3 2-205 I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #6 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
,
deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states
any change In the mix of hOUSing Units, any change In the location of hOUSing types, or any Increase In
,
the 518 residential dwelling Units shown on the approved Final Master Plan by the applicant or successor
,
owners shall require a Master Plan modification as speCified In SDC Section 5 13 -135
I
SDC SECTION 3 2-230 - CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS
Applicant's Response I
"The applIcant has chosen to apply the Cluster SubdIVISIon standards to the development SIte,
I
and per SDC ~3 2-230(A)(4) Cluster SubdIVISIons, 'Shall not exceed the maxImum denSIty of the
applIcable zoning dlStflct and the Metro Plan DenSIty IS calculated on the gross acreage'
. ApplIcabIlity and Purpose I
The proposal utIlizes the fleXIbilIty Inherent In the Cluster SubdIVISIon development standards
,
through reduced lot sIze and street WIdth, allowlf,lg the preservatIon of open space The common
open space prOVIdes passIVe recreatIon for resIdents, preserving eXIsting wetlands and treed
,
drainage baSin, and the creatIon of a constructed open stormwater management area featuring a
wetland aesthetIC I
. PermItted Dwellings, Structures and Uses
The applIcant proposes a m"cture of detached slf,lgle-famlly dwellings and attached townhomes
combined WIth common pflvate open space as allowed Details of the deSIgn are proVIded WIthin
Sheet 5, Master Plan ltIustratlon and Attachment 1, ltIustratlVe OvervIew and Attachment 2, DeSIgn
GUIdelines
. DenSIty and Setbacks
A dISCUSSIon of reSIdentIal denSIty WIthin the Cluster SubdIVISIon IS prOVIded above and the
applicatIon conforms to the reqUIred standards I
. Peflmeter
A 10-foot peflmeter setback IS proposed per the reqUIrements of SDC SectIon 3 2-215
. BUIldings HeIghts I
No resIdentIal structure WIll exceed the 35.foot maxImum heIght as defined In the SDC See
,
Attachment 1, ltIustratlve OvervIew and Attachment 2, DeSIgn GUIdelines for more informatIon
. Solar ProtectIon I
The propertIes to the north of the development sIte are deSIgnated Parks and Open Space and
,
MedIUm DenSIty ResIdentIal, as such thIS standard does not apply
. Lot Coverage I
The development WIll not exceed the 45% maxImum lot coverage of the net development area
However, indIVIdual lots may exceed thIS, see Attachment 2, DesIgn GUIdelines
. NeIghborhood CompatIbIlity I
The proposed dwelling Units aIm to reduce the "r'pact of new development on the eXIsting
neIghborhood by being generally compatIble WIth the surrounding homes In style, detaIl,
,
proportIon, and mateflals Please see Attachment 1, ltIustratlve OvervIew and Attachment 2,
,
DesIgn GUIdelines for more informatIon on desIgn detaIl In addItIon, the follOWing Items further
define thIS standard
14
. Front Yard Setbacks
Shown setbacks meet 10-foot mlmmum code requirement There are no eXlstmg smgle-famlly
resIdences located wlthm 25 feet of the subject sIte and frontmg on the same street as the
proposed development, therefore setback compatIbIlIty requirements do not apply
. BUlldmg HeIght TransItIon
Smgle story homes eXIst adjacent to Parcel 3 and 8 of the Tentative Land DIvIsIon and Street Plan
(Sheet 8) These homes appear to be less than 21' m heIght and the closest eXlstmg structure IS
setback 15 feet from Its property Ime, however, measurements were not taken In all cases
resIdentIal structures wlthm Parcel 8 WIll be setback a mlmmum of 10-feet from the property Ime
Parcel 3 of the Sheet 8, Tentative Land DIVISIon and Street Plan WIll have commercIal development
that IS setback at least 25 feet from the property Ime and IS buffered by a landscaped dramageway
and/ or parkmg area As such, the proposed houses and commercIal development WIll be located
well outsIde of the 25-foot honzontal zone
. BUlldmg Onentatlon and ConnectIvIty to Frontmg Street
Dwellmgs have front doors openmg directly to the frontmg street wIth a mmlmum 3' \paved
walkways connectmg the doors to the publIc sIdewalk
. Garage Doors
Garage doors facmg the street do not exceed the 40% of the house fa~ade WIdth
. Garage Fa~ade
The maJonty of the proposed homes WIll receIve access from alleys Where front fa~ade garage
facades are shown on the proposed homes they shall meet the code reqUIrement for a 4-foot
mlmmum setback from front fa~ade of house and/ or have a porch that, 50 square feet or more, m
sIze encroachmg mto the setback
. Wmdows
Dwellmg umts meet the reqUIred 15% wmdow/dwellmg door reqUIrement on street facmg facades
. DesIgn Vanety
Sample house elevatIons are shown wlthm Attachment 1, /IIustratlve OvervIew and Sheet 5,
Master Plan /IIustratlon
. Common Open Space
Common Open Space mcludes the areas surroundmg the relocated PIerce DItch, the stormwater
detentIon pond area m the north portIon of SIte, the neIghborhood park m the north portIon of the
SIte, the landscaped stormwater buffer area adjacent to some of the neIghborhood streets These
areas total 11 4 acres, 20 8% of the cluster subdIVISIon area See Sheet 6, VIllages, Land Use and
Area TabulatIOn
. Landscapmg
Common open space areas are predommantly vegetated WIth eXlstmg vegetatIon wlthm the
relocated PIerce DItch and shall be planted WIth SUItable wet-tolerant matenals, natIve trees and
low growmg, drought tolerant grasses Pathways provIde access and enjoyment of the areas
. Proposed fencmg
The reSIdentIal development WIll mclude the development of a umformly deSIgned fence along the
north property Ime that abuts the EWEB Easement/BIke Path The design of the fence IS detaIled
wlthm Attachment 2, DeSIgn GUldelmes "
The applicant also states "SDC SectIon 61-110, Meamng of SpecifIC Words and Terms prOVIdes a
defmltlon for Gross and Net DenSIty, repnnted here to provIde clanty
DenSIty, Gross The number of dwellmg umts for each acre of land, mcludmg, but not
lImIted to areas devoted to streets, parks, SIdewalks and other publIC faCIlitIes
DenSIty, Net The number of dwellmg umts for each acre of land m reSIdentIal use, excludmg
dedIcated streets, parks, SIdewalks and other publIC faCIlItIes Based on the Cluster SubdIVISIon
denSIty measure, the gross denSIty of the development sIte IS 9 5 umts per gross acre The
applIcant's proposed development does not exceed the maJamum denSIty allowed wlthm the MDR
dlstnct, as such the applIcatIon conforms WIth thIS standard The Master Plan Illustrates the abIlIty
to develop as many umts as consIdered m the mcluded TransportatIOn Impact AnalYSIS (TIA)
whIle also meetmg Spnngfleld code housmg reqUIrements, mcludmg the denSIty range for MDR
housmg m SDC SectIon 3 2-205(B) The cluster subdIVISIon development standards would also be
met, mcludmg the mmlmum of 12 resIdentIal umts per net acre"
15
Staff Response/Flndlng SDC Section 32-230 lists standards for Cluster SubdivIsions Staff has the
I
following concerns regarding the proposed cluster development
I
1) there are design Issues concerning the reduction In street widths which will be addressed under
Master Plan cntenon 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of this staff report,
I
2) the applicant has stated that both the proposed Single-family dwellings and the townhouses Will be
processed under Cluster SubdiVISion standards I The applicant has not addressed the design
elements or the open space requirements unique to multi-family development as speCified In SDC
Section 3 2-240, Multi-Unit Design Standards The applicant shall utilize the multi-family design
I
regulations for the proposed townhouses and eV,aluate and address any potential open space
reqUirement conflicts between SDC Sections 3 2-230 and 32-240 The more stnct open space
I
standards shall apply to the proposed townhouses,
I
3) based on the Master Plan BasIc UnderlYing Assumptions approved by the Planning Commission on
November 20, 2007 and due to the prevIous livability Issues raised by the adjacent neighbors, no
I
residential structure shall exceed the 35-foot maximum height standard speCified In SDC 32-215, and
I
4) the applicant proposes to subdiVide the MDR portion of the site over the life of the approved Master
I
Plan The applicant states that the residential development will Include the development of a
Uniformly designed fence along the north property line that abuts the EWEB Easement/Bike Path
I
The design of the fence shall be as discussed In Attachment 2, Design GUidelines, Page 8 under
I
fence standards In order to guarantee that a "Uniform" fence IS constructed by successor owners,
I
the applicant shall address thiS Issue With a deed restnctlon
I
Based on staffs response, as conditioned below, thiS application complies With SDC Section 32-230
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #7. Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
I
deed restnctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states
the applicant and successor owners shall address the Mulll-Famlly Design Standards speCified In SDC
Section 3 2-240 In a revised Attachment 2, Design GUidelines
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #8 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall evaluate
,
and address to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director any open space reqUirement conflicts
I
between SDC Sections 3 2-230 and 3 2-240 The more stnct open space standards shall apply to the
I
proposed townhouses The results of thiS evaluation shall be made part of a deed restncllon approved by
I
the Development Services Director and the City Attorney The applicant shall also calculate all required
I
open space for the MDR portion of the site to demonstrate that the open space standard can be met and
how the open space standards Will be addressed In the PhaSing Plan over the life of the Master Plan
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #9 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
I
deed restnctlon to the satlsfacbon of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states
no proposed residential structure shall exceed the 35-foot maximum height standard speCified In SDC
32-215 I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #10 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
I
deed restnctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states
the applicant or successor owners shall agree that the design of the Uniform fence along the north
,
property line that abuts the EWEB Easement/Bike Path shall be as shown In revised Attachment 2,
Design GUidelines I
SDC SECTION 3 2-300 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
I
Applicant's Response "The commercIal VIllages do not contam any resIdentIal Units These are
I
dIVIded mto two zones, MIxed-Use CommercIal and Community CommercIal The Community
16
CommercIal portIon of the sIte consIsts of the General RetaIl VIllage and the Community Retail
The MIxed-Use CommercIal portIon of the property contams three VIllages ProfeSSIonal OffIce,
Neighborhood RetaIl and Mam Street Retail The recent Metro Plan DIagram and Zonmg
ClassifIcatIon amendments mcluded the applicatIon of the Nodal Development Over/ay (/ND) to
the area zoned MIxed-Use CommercIal The recently approved MIxed-Use CommercIal ZOning
ClassIficatIon enacts a FAR of 0 30 m the area outSIde of the downtown mIxed-use area The
proposed development wlthm the sIte seeks to meet the mInimum floor area ratIo (FAR) of 0 30 as
required m SDC SectIon 3 2-630(A)(3) The Community CommercIal portIon of the development,
except for the area designated for the home Improvement center, shall meet code standards for
the MIxed-Use CommercIal development except that It does not need to meet the FAR standards
of SDC SectIon 3 2-630(A)(3) See Sheet 6, VIllages, Land Use and Area TabulatIon for more
mformatIon on the mtenslty of non-resIdentIal development
Staff Response/Fmdmg SDC Section 32-605A states "The MUG Dlstnct IS establIshed where a mIx
of commercIal WIth reSIdentIal uses IS compatIble WIth eXlstmg nearby uses Development wlthm the
MUG Dlstnct shall have a commercIal dommance, WIth reSIdentIal and publIC uses also allowed The
pnmary development objectIves of the MUG Dlstnct are to expand housmg opportumtles, allow
busmesses to locate m a vanety of settmgs, prOVIde optIons for Itvmg, workmg, and shoppmg
enVIronments, facliltale more mtenslve use of land while mmlmlzmg potentIally adverse Impacts, and to
proVIde optIons for pedestnan-onented lIfestyles Lots/parcels m the MUG Dlslncl shall generally have
frontage on either an artenal or colleclor streel ..
The Intent of the MUC Dlstnct IS to proVide opportUnities for a mix of commercial and reSidential
development Within a bUilding The applicant has submitted a proposed 1003 acre development that has
separate reSidential and commercial components However, the City CounCil's approval of the Metro Plan
diagram and ZOning Map amendments approved the concept of "mixed use" development shown In thiS
Master Plan application The applicability of the FAR (Floor Area Ration) standards Will be addressed
under SDC Section 3 2-305, below
SDC SECTION 3 2-305 ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Applicant's Response "The Master Plan contams approxImately 45 6 gross acres on-sIte wlthm
commercIal zonmg dlstncts, approxImately 19 6 acres are wlthm the Community CommercIal (CC)
zonmg dlstnct and 26 acres are wlthm the MIxed Use CommercIal (MUC) zOning dIstrict Per the
continUity dISCUSSIon wlthm the CIty'S response wlthm the Pre-ApplicatIOn Report - Marcola
Meadows (ZON 2006-00030, September, 24, 2007)
1 All Community CommercIal development other than Lowes, must comply WIth MUC deSIgn
standards (exceptIOn - the FAR WIll not apply), and
2 The proposed Lowes [home Improvement center bUlldmg must] mcorporate a bUlldmg exterior
deSIgn SImIlar to the eXlstmg Lowes m Scottsdale, Arizona or one that compIles WIth the current
bUlldmg deSIgn standards m SDC [SectIOn 3 2-400] as speCified m Metro Plan Dlagram/ Zonmg
Map Amendment CondItIon of Approval #7 As noted above the applIcant shall apply deSIgn
standards of the MUC zone to all community commercIal development (except FAR) Attachment
1, tIIustratlVe OvervIew and Attachment 2, DeSIgn Standards show the deSIgn crltena and Illustrate
the deSIgn of the Lowes whIch IS SImilar to the one m Scottsdale, Arizona The Master Plan
proposes a mIx of commercIal uses allowed wlthm the MUC and CC dIstriCts that WIll serve to
meet nodal development objectIves and meet the needs of the future reSIdents at the VIllages at
Marcola Meadows, consIstent WIth the pOlICY directIves found m the SCLS The applIcation of thIS
MUC and CC zonmg, WIth the prOVIded DeSIgn Standards (Attachment 2) helps reduce the eXlstmg
defICIt of needed commercial lands found m the SCLS The MUC dIstrict allows general office and
other uses permItted m the GO dIstrict SDC SectIon 3 2-305D encourages use of the GO zone as
a tranSItIon, providmg a buffer between reSIdential uses and more mtenslVe uses The
arrangement of uses proposed m the VIllages at Marcola Meadows Master Plan seek to SImIlarly
use the MUC zone to buffer the eXlstmg neIghborhood from the more mtense uses wlthm the
development"
17
Staff Response/Finding SDC Section 32-305B establishes the Community Commercial (CC) Dlstnct
,
and Seclion 32-605A establishes the Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) Dlstnct However, staff has the
following concerns I
1) In order to establish consistent deSign standards for all commercial development on this site, and
because the CC Dlstnct does not have specific deSign standards, and where the MUC Dlstnct does
,
have such standards, staff IS on record stating the compliance with MUC deSign standards shall also
,
be required In the entire area of the site that IS zoned CC The applicant has stated that a Lowes
deSign used In Scottsdale Anzona would be similar to the MUC deSign standards Staffs Intent IS that
the proposed home Improvement center not be Just another "big box" In lieu of a specific approved
deSign for the proposed home Improvement center, the applicant or successor owners shall submit
I
elevation draWings that are similar to the "Scottsdale Lowes" deSign, or comply with the deSign
I
standards specified In SDC Sections 3 2-620 through 630 (the MUC deSign standards), or SDC
I
Section 32-445 (the Campus Industrial deSign standards that applied prior to the Metro Plan diagram
I
and ZOning Map amendment approvals) The applicant shall submit elevation draWings for the
,
proposed home Improvement center with the Final Master Plan and specify which standards have
been utilized, and I
2) staff agrees with the applicant that the MUC FA~ (Floor Area RatiO) standards will not apply to the
proposed home Improvement center or other development within the CC Dlstnct, and
I
3) the CC and MUC Districts are the only approved commercial zoning districts on the site If the
applicant or successor owners propose to establish uses that may be permitted In the GO District but
,
are not allowed In the MUC District use list, the applicant or successor owners shall obtain a ZOning
,
Map amendment to allow those uses Such an amendment shall be considered a Master Plan
modification as specified In SDC Section 5 13 -135
I
Based on staffs response, as conditioned below, this application complies with SDC Sections 3 2-305
and 3 2-605 I '
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #11 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit
I
elevalions draWings for the proposed home Improvement center with the required Final Master Plan to the
,
salisfactlon of the Development Services Director and specify which deSign standards have been utilized
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #12 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
I
deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states
the applicant and successor owners shall utilize the MUC deSign standards, with the exception of the
FAR standard, In all CC zoned portions of the site I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #13. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
I
deed restnclion to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states
the applicant and successor owners shall be required to submit a ZOning Map amendment application If
,
any such person proposes to establish uses that may be perrnltted In the GO Dlstnct but are not allowed
,
under the use list In the MUC District If this IS the case, the developer shall also apply for a Master Plan
modification as specified In SDC Section 5 13-135 I
SDC SECTION 3 2-315 - LOT SIZE ST ANDAjDS
Applicant's Response .. /n addItIon to the 19 6 acres of CC, the 26 acres of MUC proposed on the
sIte wIll be subject to the lot sIze and dlmenslontstandards m thIs sectIon of the code, as reqUIred
by SDC SectIon 3 2-615A Sheet 8, TentatIve Land DIVIsIon and Street Plan Illustrates that all lots
I
wlthm the MUC and CC dlstncts meet the mInimum requIrements m SDC SectIon 3 2-315 by bemg
,
more than 6,000 s f m sIze and havmg more than 50 feet of street frontage"
Staff Response/Finding Staff concurs With the aphllcant's submittal
18
SDC SECTION 3 2-315 - SETBACK STANDARDS
Applicant's Response "MUC setback standards In SDC SectIon 3 2-615 refer back to the
minImum reqUIrements In SDC Section 3 2-315 The Master Plan Illustrates that setbacks In the CC
and MUC-zoned areas wIll be met Future bUIlding locatIOns WIthin the Main Street RetaIl wIll be
placed adjacent to the sIdewalk In conformance WIth the CIty Code The Master Plan also Includes
a 30 foot vegetated buffer along the development sItes frontage of Marcola Road, 28th Street and
31st Street rights-of-way - both well In excess of the standards In SDC SectIOn 3 2-315 "
Staff Response/Flndlng Staff concurs With the applicant's submittal The proposed 30 foot-wide
landscaped setback the applicant proposes to use IS based on a standard of the prevIous Cl zoning that
reqUired a 30 foot-wide bUilding setback ThiS exceeds any such setback In the MUC or CC Dlstncts The
applicant has voluntanly chosen to use thiS standard to provide additional buffer for the residents on the
south side of Marcola Road However, thiS setback shall also apply after the dedication of publiC nght-of-
way for the roundabouts reqUired as discussed on Pages 35 to 37 of thiS staff report
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #14 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
deed restnctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states
the applicant and successor owners shall be required to adhere to the proposed 30 foot-wide bUilding
setback along the Marcela Road and 28th Street frontages ThiS standard shall also apply after any
dedication of publiC nght-of-way by the applicant for the required roundabouts
SDC SECTION 3 2-315 - HEIGHT STANDARDS
Applicant's Response "The MUC dIstrict has a bUIlding heIght lImIt of 60 feet per SDC Section
4 60-100, except for when the MUC dIstrict abuts an LDR, MDR or MUR dIstrict In that case, the
heIght limIts of SDC SectIOn 3 2-315 apply, which protect solar access for adjOining propertIes No
bUIldings Within areas proposed for CC or MUC zoning exceed the 60-foot heIght lImit (In fact, the
proposed commercial bUIldings are single-story and range from 22' to 38' and average around 28'-
301 Proposed development WIthin the MUC areas IS so dIstant from adjOining resIdentially zoned
areas that solar access provIsIons In SDC Section 3 2-315 wIll be ensured SIte Plan ReVIew
applIcations for future MUC development WIll have to demonstrate compliance WIth thiS
standard"
Staff Response/Flndlng There are no height limitations In the CC Dlstnct and there IS a 90 foot height
limitation In the MUC Dlstnct (SDC Section 3 2-615) The applicant has stated that the proposed
commerCial development Will be Single-story With a range from 22'-38' In the MUC Dlstnct, there IS an
additional height limitation that states the "maximum bUlldmg height when abuttmg an LOR, MDR, or
MUR to the east, west or south [shall be] no greater than that permitted m the LOR or MDR Dlstncts for a
distance of 50 feet" Plan sheet 6 shows parking and a portion of the storm water greenway system
separating the proposed commerCial from the eXisting reSidential development of more than 50 feet As
shown on the plan submitted, the applicant complies With SDC Secllon 3 2-315 ThiS being said, thiS
Issue must be addressed by a deed restnctlon
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #15 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
deed restnctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states
that no commerCial bUilding shall exceed the 30 foot bUilding height standard In the Low DenSity
ReSidential Dlstnct for a distance of 50 feet ThiS restnctlon shall apply to the eXisting reSidential
development at the Interface of the proposed commerCial area west of Martin Dnve
SDC SECTION 3 2-600 SPRINGFIELD MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS
SDC SECTION 3 2-605 - ESTABLISHMENT OF MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS
19
Applicant's Response "The Master Plan proposes wIthin the 26 acres proposed for MUC zoning
I
developments that take advantage of the broad range of uses allowed In the MUC zone, and the
I
abIlity to mIx these uses WIthin a gIVen portIon of the sIte Flanking eIther SIde of Martin Drive (at
I
the west entrance to the VIllages at Marcola Meadows) IS proposed the core mIxed use gateway
I
area to support the nodal development concept conSIdered for the development sIte Urban
I
deSIgn consultants engaged by the CIty In response to the applIcant's draft master plan and pre-
I
applIcatIOn submIttal IdentIfIed the need to esta~lIsh a mIxed use commercIal (Main Street) retail
presence adjacent to, and WIth VIsual accessIbIlIty from, Marcola Road Therefore, Sheet 6,
I
VIllages, Land Use and Area TabulatIon, IdentIfIes an area of approxImately 6 5 acres WIth a mIx of
I
uses including nearly 62,200 sq ft of ground-/ev,el specIalty retail The remaining commercIal
VIllages Include approXImately 22 2 acres and 21,6,400 sq ft of offIce and retaIl space In addItIon,
the home Improvement center WIll prOVIde an addItIonal 171,000 sq ft of retaIl space Together,
I
WIth the Single-family reSIdentIal and townhome r,llages that together are to be developed In
excess of 12 Units per net acre thIS applIcatIon fulfIlls some of the objectIVes of the nodal
I
development concept, and some of the objectIVes for the MUC zone (I e , SDC SectIon 3 2-605A
I
Includes objectIVes such as expanding hOUSing opportunitIes and prOVIding optIons for lIVing,
I
working, and shopping enVIronments) Also proposed for MUC zoning are areas meet the
I
requirement In SDC SectIon 3 2-605A for frontage onto an arterial or collector street WhIle the
remaining areas proposed for CC development are Intended for primarily for the home
Improvement center and/or general-office related uses, the MUC dIstrict allows the fleXIbIlity to
I
Include a WIder range of uses ConsIstent WIth the objectIves for the MUC zone outlined In SDC
I
SectIon 3 2-605A , the Master Plan allows bUSinesses to locate In a variety of settings, and
faCIlItates more intensIVe uses adjacent to the hIgh traffic comdor of Marcola Road, Martin Drive
and Belle Boulevard (to buffer the eXIsting reSIdentIal neIghborhood from the more Intense home
Improvement center use) Some components of the MUC zone standards (I e , Lot SIze and
I
DImenSIOn, Setback, HeIght, Off-Street Parking standards) are CIted above WIthin the sectIon that
I
dISCUSSes SDC SectIon 3 2-300, CommercIal Zoning DIstricts as reqUIred"
I
Staff Response/Flndlng Staff concurs With the applicant's diSCUSSion about MUC regarding SDC
Section 3 2-605 However, the applicant states "thIS' applIcatIOn fulfills some of the objectIVes of the
I
nodal development concept" TYPically the reSidential portion of the node IS developed first or at least
I
concurrently With the commercial development Local reSidential/commercial mixed use developments
(Crescent Village and Valley River Village) constructed reSidential area pnor to commercial areas In
I
order to achieve the nodal development concept, the applicant must proVide a PhaSing Plan that
coordinates both the reSidential and commercial portions of the site The proposed PhaSing Plan does
not demonstrate how thiS Master Plan WIll comply with the TransPlan definition of nodal development
speCified on Pages 28 and 29 of thiS staff report I
SDC SECTION 3 2-625 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED-USE
DISTRICTS I
Applicant's Response "Development proposedl WIth thIS Master Plan for the MUC DIstrict will
conform to these development standards Although speCIfIC reVIew and a determinatIon of
I
complIance WIth these standards WIll be deferred to SIte Plan ReVIew and, as appropriate,
subdIVISIon reVIew, informatIon Included WIth thIS Master Plan applIcatIon confirms that such
I
complIance can be determined to be reasonably feaSIble at thIS tIme"
I
Staff Response/Finding Staff concurs With the applicant's submittal pertaining to MUC Dlstnct general
development standards I
SDC SECTION 3 2-630- SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED-USE
DISTRICTS I
Applicant's Response "As desCribed above, ln~ormatlOn submItted WIth thIS Master Plan
demonstrates that It IS reasonably feaSIble to achIeve compliance WIth the standards of thIS
20
subsectIon subject to final approval under SIte Plan ReVIew In addItIon to the MUC dIstrict, the
CC DIstrict shall adhere to the standards of SectIon 3 2-630, except that the FAR standard shall
not apply"
Staff Response/Flndlng Staff concurs With the applicant's submittal pertaining MUC District speCific
development standards Staff has already discussed the FAR exception In the CC DistriCt, above
SECTION 3 3-200 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT IIDWPI
Applicant's Response "Spnngfield has several wellhead protection areas Nmety percent of
Sprmgfield's dnnkmg water comes from wells In every mstance, care shall be taken to prevent
groundwater contammatlon, Contractors/developers/owners shall be responsIble for the safe
handlmg and storage of chemIcals, petroleum products, fertIlIzers, and the prevention of
groundwater and storm water runoff contammatlon SpeCIal reqUIrements may be necessary for
groundwater protectIon at thIS development"
"Plan Sheet 3, SIte Assessment of EXlstmg CondItIons, Plan Sheet 9, Storm water Plan and
Attachment 6, Stormwater Master Plan Illustrate the groundwater TIme of Travel Zones (TOTZ)
extendmg on portIons of the development sIte relatIve to eXlstmg condItIons and to future
development proposed m the Marcola Meadows Master Plan These TOTZ were mapped usmg
data receIved from the CIty of Sprmgfleld dIgItal GIS database (2004), applIed to Lane County
assessment and taxatIon maps, whIch were then added to detaIled topographIc and sIte boundary
data to create detaIled maps mdlcatmg the locatIon of TOTZ on-sIte consIstent WIth SDC SectIon
3 3-220C "
"Pursuant to SDC Section 3 3-225A , a DWP Overlay DIstrict Development ApplicatIon WIll be
reqUIred concurrent WIth any future SIte Plan ReVIew (SPR) applicatIon for development that may
result m the storage or use of hazardous matenals The above-referenced maps mdlcate that the
home Improvement center IS located wlthm the 1-5 year TOTZ for the PIerce groundwater well field
As such, use, storage and contamment reqUIrements outlmed m SDC Section 3 3-235B and m the
Uniform FIre Code WIll be observed as part of the SPR revIew process for future development
Furthermore, stormwater treatment faCIlities such as dry wells for roof dramage, are permItted
wlthm the 1-5 year TOTZ, and WIll otherwIse be subject to permlttmg through the Oregon
Department of EnVIronmental QualIty These provIsIons WIll ensure that future development
compiles WIth the reqUIrements of Section 3 3-200 and WIll preserve groundwater quality "
The applicant also states "Relevant portIons of a letter dated August 22, 2007 from Amy Chmttz, SUB
Water DIVISIon IS proVIded below The proposed Marcela Meadows development IS wilhm Spnngfield's
adopted Dnnkmg Water Protection Area ThiS area IS highly susceptible to contammatlon from chemicals
that may spill or leak onto the ground surface Dunng all phases of construction and operations, speCial
precautions must be taken to prevent groundwater contammatlon Any chemical spills or leaks must be
cleaned up Immediately and cleanup matenals disposed off-Site and m accordance With Lane County and
DEQ reqUirements The property lies wlthm the 0 -1 and 1 - 5-year tlme-of-travel zones (TOTZs) to the
Pierce well The use, storage, and production of DNAPL chemicals Will be prohibited at thiS SIte, both dunng
construction and operations (DNAPL and Exempt LIsts attached) The comments below respond to
mformatlOn proVided m the pre-application report More speCific gUldelmes for construction and operations
Will be proVided dunng site plan reView (emphaSIS added) , " As noted m Ms Chlmtz' comments the
Wellhead ProtectIon Areas Contammant Source Inventory Map for Spnngfleld mdlcates that the
property IS Identified as wlthm the 0-1 Year, 1-5 Year TIme of Travel Zone (TOTZ) Development of
the property WIll be subject to the provIsIons of SDC SectIon 3 3-200 Each developer, whether
dunng development of the entIre parent parcel or dunng development of mdlvlduallots, must follow
the reqUIrements of SDC SectIon 33-200 SDC Section 3 32203 C stIpulates that tax lots havmg
parts Iymg wlthm more than one TOTZ shall be governed by the standards of the more restnctlve
TOTZ At the tIme of Master Plan approval applicatIon, the applIcatIon therefore applIes uniformly to
the entire parent parcel, subject to the exception set forth m SDC SectIon 3 3-2203 C After Plat
recordation, mdlvlduallots withm the Master Plan may be determmed to be outsIde the 0-1 year
21
Ton and be determmed mstead to overlIe other TIme of Travel Zones In that event, those lots
would be subject to the reqUIrements specific to the other TOn."
Staff Response/Flndlng Pursuant to SDC Section 13 3-225A , a DWP Overlay Dlstnct application will be
concurrent with any Site Plan Review application fori development that may result In the storage or use of
hazardous matenals The specific requirements listed In the Amy Chintz letter dated August 22, 2007 will
I
be made conditions of approval of thiS Master Plan application Based on staffs response, as conditioned
below, thiS application complies with SDC Section 313-200
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #16 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
I
deed restnctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states
except for the requirement pertaining to pervious surfaces In the parking lots, the applicant and successor
owners shall comply With the follOWing reqUlrementsl requested by SUB at the time of Site Plan ReView
application submittal for the home Improvement center proposed In Phase 2 and for any additional
commercial development proposed that IS Within the Dnnklng Water Protection Overlay Dlstnct as shown
In Phase 4
As noted In the report, each Individual developer Will need to follow the requirements of SDC Section
I
3 3-300 Dnnklng Water Protection Overlay Dlstnct Applications may be reqUired
I
SDC Section 3 3-300 requires that all hazardous matenals that pose a nsk to groundwater be stored In
I
secondary containment In order to meet the secondary containment requirement, the developer of the
home Improvement store Will need to Incorporatelsecondary containment Into the deSign of the bUilding
floor and any other areas where hazardous matenals, Including fertilizers and other landscaping
I
products, will be stored Chemicals stored outdoors (fertilizers, pesticides, etc ) must be covered and
placed In secondary containment I
The north-central portion of the site for the home Improvement store lies Within the 0 - 1 TOTZ The 0-1
I
year TOTZ standards, Including the 500-gallon storage limit, Will apply to the faCIlity unless no
I
hazardous matenals are stored In or Within 50 feet of the portion of the site that lies Within the 0-1 TOTZ
(Hazardous matenals offered for sale In their onglnal sealed containers of five gallons or less are
exempt from the 500-gallon storage limit) I
. All lease agreements for the commercial spaces must Include language requlnng compliance With
Article 17 Dnnklng Water Protection (DWP) Overlay Dlstnct of the Spnngfield Development Code
I
Occupants may need to complete a DWP Overlay Dlstnct Application
. No fill matenals containing hazardous matenals shall be used on thiS site
. Injection wells are prohibited Within the two-year TOTZ Any Injection wells outside the two-year TOTZ
I
(If applicable) must be approved by both the City of Spnngfield and DEQ based on prOXimity to
I
domestic/public dnnklng water wells, SOils type, and depth to groundwater
I
The pictures In the application suggested that parking lots Will have pervious surfaces Please consult
I
With the City of Spnngfield Public Works Englneenng regarding speCific gUidelines and restnctlons for
I
pervious pavement Within wellhead protection areas
. ThiS developmenfs emphaSIS on waterways and Inatural processes offers a unique voluntary
opportUnity for public education about stormwater quality and groundwater protection SpeCial
I
educational slgnage would fit nicely Into the plans for the waterways and open spaces
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #17. Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
I
deed restnctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states
no pervious pavement shall be permitted In any parking areas on the entire site
I
SDC SECTION 3 3-100 NODAL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT UNDO}
I
Applicant Response "As noted above, the mfouratlOn submItted WIth thIS Master Plan
applicatIOn demonstrates that compliance WIth applIcable provIsIons of SDC SectIon 3 3-100 or
adopted alternate exceptIon standards can be reasonably achIeved Subject to such prellmmary
I
vIews as part of thIS proceedmg, fmal complIance WIll be determmed through SIte Plan RevIew"
22
Staff Response/Finding The "as noted" phrase refers to MUC Development Standards discussed
earlier In this staff report However, as stated previously, the Metro Plan designation on 80 acres (both
MDR and MUC) IS Nodal Development Area Staff did not apply the Nodal Development Overlav District
'to the MUC portion of this site because the FAR requirement IS more restrictive In the Overlay DiStrict,
than In the MUC District because the applicant IS proposing single-story commercial bUildings, without
residential uses above The Overlay District FAR standard could affect the proposed commercial
development In the MUC However, staff believes that In order to comply with the TransPlan defimtlon of
nodal development on Page 23 of thiS staff report, the following Nodal Development Overlay District
prohibited uses found In SDC Section 33-1010B should be applied to thiS Master Plan application
1 Car washes
2 Auto Parts stores
3 Recreational vehicle and heavy truck sales/rental/service
4 Motor vehicle sales/rental/service
5 Service stations, including qUick servicing
6 Tires, sales/service
7 Transit park and ride, major or minor, except where there IS a shared parking arrangement with
another permitted use
8 Agricultural machinery rental/sales/service
9 Boats and watercraft sales and service
10 Equipment, heavy, rental/sales/service
11 Manufactured dwelling sales/service/repair
ThiS prohibited use list shall also apply to all proposed development In the CC District
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #18 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states
lists all uses on the Nodal Development Overlay District prohibited use list specified In SDC Section 3 3-
1010B applicable to the MUC and CC Districts
SDC SECTION 512-100 LAND DIVISIONS- PARTITIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS
Staff Response/Finding The applicant has stated several times In the submittal materials that the site
Will be subdivided over the life of the Master Plan Any SubdivIsion Tentative Plan application, including
the one proposed to accomplish Phase 1, shall comply with the Final Master Plan
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #19 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states
that the applicant and successor owners shall submit SubdiVISion Tentative Plan applications that comply
with the approved Final Master Plan
SDC SECTION 517-100 SITE PLAN REVIEW
Staff Response/Finding The applicant has stated several times In the submittal materials that both the
proposed MDR development and CC and MUC development site Will require Site Plan Review approval
over the life of the Master Plan Any Site Plan Review application, including the ones proposed to
accomplish Phases 2 and 4, shall comply with the Final Master Plan
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #20 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states
that the applicant and successor owners shall submit Site Plan Review applications that comply with the
approved Final Master Plan
SDC SECTION 519-100 TREE FELLING STANDARDS
23
SDC SECTION 5 19-105 - PURPOSE
Applicant's Response "Sheet 5, Master Plan lIIu,stratlve Illustrates proposed bUIlding locatIons
and envelopes, and the accompanYing Sheet 3, SIte Assessment of ExIsting CondItIons, depIcts
,
the eXIsting trees on the development sIte A Tree Felling Penn/t shall be submItted pursuant to
I
approval of thIs applIcatIon and future subdIvIsIon request per the reqUIrements of SDC SectIon
,
519-115 The trees shown on Sheet 3 are all over 5" dbh and most WIll be removed to prOVIde for
,
future transportatIon Infrastructure, utilItIes and the relocatIon of the PIerce DItch ThIs removal IS
penn/tted subject to SDC SectIon 5 19-110 upon 'approval of constructIon plans to Improve the
,
sIte roadways, and utIlity easements The applicant WIll prOVIde an enhanced vegetated
,
landscaping wIthin the PIerce DItch of natIve trees and shrubs that will meet CIty reqUIrements "
I
Staff Response/Fmdmg Staff concurs with the applicant's submittal The eXisting trees on the site are
,
located along the eXisting Pierce Ditch SpeCifically, ,SDC Seclion 519-1108 2 states that "No tree fellmg
pemut Will be reqUired m the followmg mstances Any fellmg necessary to mstall or mamtam
,
Improvements, mcludmg, but not limited to streets and sewers wlthm publicly owned and accepted nghts-
,
of-way or utility easements pursuant to approved copstructlon plans or encroachment permits" Proposed
Phase 1 Includes the submittal of a SubdiVIsion Tentative Plan appllcalion that Will allow the dedication of
,
public nghts-of-way and public utility easements necessary for the Improvements that have been
discussed preViously as being part of Phase 1 Thelappllcant shall be reqUired to Install landscaping and
trees In the relocated "water feature" and Install street trees along the streets that are reqUIred to be
,
constructed dunng Phase 1 The newly Installed trees Will greatly exceed the number of trees proposed to
,
be removed No separate Tree Felling Permit Will be reqUired for any proposed development In Phase 1
I
APPLICABLE METRO PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
POLICY 24 "To accomplish the Fundamental Pnnclple of compact urban growth addressed m the text
,
and on the Metro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-wide denSity of new reSidential constructIOn, but
,
necessanly each project, shall average approximately SIX dwellmg Units per gross acre over the plannmg
penod " I
Applicant's Response "The proposed development seeks to achIeve a denSIty for all reSIdentIally
,
deSIgnated and zoned land of approxImately twelve dwelling Units per net acre The Master Plan of
, -
the SIte, therefore, will help the regIon achIeve Its goal of compact urban development"
I
OBJECTIVE 8 "Encourage development of SUitable vacant, underdeveloped, and
I
redevelopable land where selYlces are available, thus capitalIZIng on publiC expenditures
already made for these selYlces " I
Applicant's Response "The subject sIte is curre,ntly underdeveloped WIth access to readIly
avaIlable publIC facilItIes and servIces Approva/l of thIS proposal WIll capItalize on the publIC
servIces and expendItures already made and planned for In the ImmedIate area In short, the
underdeveloped subject sIte IS SUItable for reSIdentIal and commercIal uses (speCIfIcally the
I
proposed mIxed resIdentIal and commercIal area) and has access to publIC faCIlitIes and
servIces" I
A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND HOUSING ELEMENT
I
POLICY A 8 "ReqUire development to pay the cost, as determmed by the local junsdlctron, of extendmg
public selYlces and mfrastructure The cities shall e~amme ways to proVide subSidies or mcentlVes for
provldmg mfrastructure that support affordable housmg andlor higher denSity housmg "
24
ApplIcant's Response "Through codIfIed approval processes for thIs and subsequent
applIcatIons, development shall conform to CIty of SpringfIeld reqUIrements to pay the fa" cost of
extending publIc servIces and Infrastructure These reqUIrements Include System Development
Charges whIch WIll be assessed and applied to future speCIfIC development permIts Infrastructure
proVIded by the proposed development WIll faCIlitate a variety of housing types including small lot
Single-famIly detached homes and town homes "
POLICY A 10 "Promote hIgher reSIdentIal denSIty mSlde the UGB that utilIzes eXlstmg mfrastructure,
Improves the efficIency of public servIces and facilItIes, and conserves rural resource lands outSIde the
UGB"
POLICY A 11 "Generally locate hIgher denSIty reSIdentIal development near employment or commercIal
servIce, m proxImIty to major transportatIOn systems or wlthm transportatIon-efficIent nodes"
POLICY A 12 "Coordmate hIgher denSIty reSIdentIal development WIth the proVISIon of adequate
mfrastructure and servIces, open space, and other urban amemtles "
POLICY A 13 "Increase overall reSIdentIal denSIty m the metropolitan area by creatmg more
opportumtles for effectIvely deSIgned moW, redevelopment, and mixed-use while consldermg Impacts of
mcreased reSIdential denSIty on hlstonc, eXlstmg and future neIghborhoods"
Applicant's Response "The proposed Master Plan Implements hIgher denSIty development on
MedIUm DenSIty ReSIdentIal deSIgnated and zoned land WIthin the metropolItan area The
resIdentIal portIon WIll be developed under SpringfIeld and Metro Plan nodal development
standards, WIth a minImum net denSIty of 12 Units per acre In addItIon, the Single-family portIon IS
proposed under the standards for cluster development WIth notably smaller lot sIzes and common
open space proVIded Along WIth the mIx of Single-famIly small-lot development and townhouse
development, the applIcant IS proposing commercIal development prOVIding employment
opportunitIes and commercIal servIces for current and future reSIdents of the area DeSIgned to
be a walkable community, It WIll prOVIde a combinatIon of hIgher reSIdentIal denSItIes combined
WIth employment and commercIal opportunitIes The Master Plan Integrates hIgher denSIty
development WIth eXIsting neIghborhoods In several ways Most of the development's boundary
WIth eXIsting reSIdentIal neIghborhoods to the west and north WIll be composed of the lowest
denSIty development (Single-famIly detached lots) The plan WIll locate hIgher denSIty hOUSing
along the east SIde of the subject SIte, separated from development to the east by North 31st
Street The proposed development WIll minImIze the dIsturbance to eXIsting development whIle
achIeVing the CIty'S and regIon's need for hIgher denSIty, mIxed-use development"
POLICY A 17 "ProVIde opportumtles for a full range of chOIce m housmg type, denSIty, SIze, cost, and
locatIon "
Applicant's Response "The Master Plan Includes small-lot Single-famIly development and
townhomes The denSIty of development IS proposed WIthin the des"ed ranges for medIum
denSIty reSIdentIal and Includes more than 20% of common open space for use by the reSIdents of
the development The locatIon of the hOUSing IS central to the nodal development area and shall
prOVIde a variety of employment and commercIal opportunitIes for the eXIsting reSIdents of the
area and future reSIdents of the development"
POLICY A 20 "Encourage home ownershIp of all housmg types, partIcularly for low-mcome households"
Applicant's Response "The applIcant's proposed development WIll Include a variety of home
ownershIp optIons on small Single-famIly lots and townhome lots The sIze of the lots and the
optIons for home ownershIp WIll Increase the supply of affordable ownershIp hOUSing In the
region .,
25
POLICY A 22 "Expand opportunitIes for a mIx of uses In newly developing areas and eXIsting
I
neIghborhoods through local zoning and development regulatIons"
I
ApplIcant's Response "The Master Plan wIll facIlItate expanded opportunities for resIdentIal and
I
commercIal (mam street, neIghborhood retaIl, professIonal offIce) development The project WIll
I
mcrease the diversIty of uses where current opportUnitIes are lImIted Current resIdents of
adjacent neIghborhoods and future reSidents of the development Itself WIll all benefit from
I
mcreased commercial and employment opportunities"
F TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
ApplIcant's Response "The project area IS currently served by Marcola Road, 28th, and 31st
I
streets Marcola Road, the southern border of the subject SIte, IS fully Improved and IS desIgnated
as a Mmor Artenal 28th and 31st streets border the eastern boundary of the subject sIte The CIty
I
of Sprmgfleld's Conceptual Road Network Map IdentifIes 28th and 31st streets as the "31st Street
Connector" The 28th street portIon of the 31st S'treet Connector IS fully Improved and claSSIfIed
as a Collector street Thirty-FIrst Street IS not fully Improved and IS claSSIfIed as a Collector
street Currently, 31st street IS a two-lane asphalt paved road that does not have gutters, curbs, or
I
SIdewalks There IS a CIty of Sprmgfield 10' utIlIty and SIdewalk easement on the west SIde of
31st street to faCIlItate road Improvements m thei'uture "
POLICY F 13 "Support transportatIon strategIes that enhance neighborhood lIvabIlity"
POLICY F 14 "Address the moblltty and safety nee~s of motonsts, transIt users, biCyclIsts, pedestnans,
I
and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system Improvements"
I
POLICY F 26 "ProVIde for a pedestnan envIronment that IS well Integrated WIth adjacent land uses and IS
I
deSIgned to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking"
I
Applicant's Response "The proposed development shall be served by the eXlstmg streets
I
(Marcola Road, North 28th Street, North 31st Street) and future streets mcludmg a collector and
locat streets It WIll be easy to get around, and to: do so on foot All streets WIll have WIde
SIdewalks, many of them setback from vehicle traffIC The entire community WIll be connected
I
WIth all-weather multI-use off street pathways It WIll be convenient and safe to walk from each of
the nme master planned VIllages to the others "I
POLICY F 36 "ReqUire that new development pay for ItS capacIty Impact on the transportatIOn system"
I
Applicant's Response "A TraffIC Impact AnalYSIS (TIA) determmed the effects of the proposed
Master Plan The T1A proposes necessary mItIgatIons of transportatIon system capacIty Impacts
I
Future development Impacts Will be offset by system development charges (SDC's) WIth regard
I
to the TransportatIOn Element of the Metro Plan, the CIty can fmd that the proposed Master Plan
I
Will not make the Metro Plan mternally mconslstent "
I
G PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENiI"
I
POLICY G 5 "ConSider wellhead protectIOn areas and surface water supplIes when planning stormwater
faCIlities " I
Apptlcant's Response "A stormwater management plan shall be created dunng the Master Plan
I
approval process SpeCIal emphaSIS WIll be placed upon the wellhead protectIon area and suIface
water supplIes when plannmg stormwater faCIlItIes "
H PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
26
ApplIcant's Response "The changes proposed by thIs applIcatIon wIll have no Impact on any
recreatIon area, facIlity or opportumty that has been mventoned and desIgnated by the Metro Plan
or any relevant facIlity plan regardmg the CIty'S recreatIonal needs The recreatIonal needs of the
commumty are adequately met by the eXlstmg and planned facIlitIes enumerated m the
Wlllamalane 20-year Park and RecreatIon ComprehensIve Plan, 2004 and other assocIated
documents "
I HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
"ApplIcant's Response "The changes proposed by thIS applIcatIOn WIll have no Impact on any
hlstonc resource that has been mventoned and desIgnated by the Metro Plan or any relevant
facIlIty plan or mventory regardmg the CIty'S hlstonc resources With regard to the Hlstonc
Preservation Element of the Metro Plan, the CIty can fmd that the proposed Master Plan WIll not
make the Metro Plan mternally mconSlstent "
J ENERGY ELEMENT
METRO PLAN, GOAL 1 "MaXimize the conservation and effiCient utilization of all types of energy"
Applicant's Response "The proposed Master Plan and subsequent development of the sIte WIll
encourage conservatIOn and effiCIent utilIzatIon of energy by a concentratIOn of employment,
servIces and resIdences on the SIte, and facllltatmg transIt servIces to the sIte"
POLICY J 8 "Commercial, residential, and recreatIOnal land uses shall be mtegrated to the greatest
extent pOSSible, balanced With all plannmg poliCies to reduce travel distances, optimize reuse of waste
heat, and optimize potential on-site energy generation"
ApplIcant's Response "The Master Plan will enable the subsequent development of a mIxed-use
proVldmg employment, servIces and resIdentIal opportumtles The proposed development
envISIons a senes of VIllages that mclude mam street retail, neIghborhood retail, general retaIl and
reSIdentIal uses (smgle-famlly detached and townhomes) Workers and reSidents WIll have the
optIon to obtam dmmg, shoppmg, and other commercIal amemtles less than a mIle from the
subject sIte consIstent WIth PoliCY J 8's mandate to balance all plannmg polICIes to reduce travel
dIstance EXlstmg reSIdentIal neIghborhoods are adjacent to the subject sIte Schools and the
Wlllamalane Park to the north prOVIde access to recreational (and educatIonal) facIlitIes and
servIces ThIS master planned mIxed-use development WIth a mIx of commercIal and reSIdentIal
uses adjacent to eXlstmg and planned recreatIonal uses (all wlthm reasonable walkmg dIstance,
whIch reduces travel dIstances) IS consIstent WIth thIS polIcy"
Staff Response/Flndlng The applicant submitted these Metro Plan goals, objectives and poliCies dUring
the review of the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendments At that time, staff found that the
applicant complied With the above Metro Plan references
OTHER FUNCTIONAL PLANS AND SPECIAL STUDIES
ApplIcant's Response "There IS no applIcable refmement plan speCIfIC to the area contammg the
development sIte Conformance WIth poliCIes m the TransPlan, Sprmgfleld CommercIal Lands
Study, ReSIdentIal Lands Study, and MetropolItan PublIC FacIlitIes Plan has been addressed m
pnor sectIons of thIS narratIve relatIve to synonymous polICIes contamed m the Metro Plan
Staff ResDonse/FlndlnQ Staff concurs With the applicant's submittal However, speCific TransPlan
Findings Goals, Objectives and PoliCies are discussed below In an effort to define the nodal development
concept which IS the core of thiS Master plan application and IS espeCially Important regarding the
reqUired PhaSing Plan discussed on Pages 52 - 57 of thiS staff report The PhaSing Plan question IS a
Significant aspect of thiS application, which may affect staffs decIsion to recommend approval or denial of
thiS appllcallon
27
TRANSPLAN FINDINGS. GOALS. OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma TransPlan Land Use Fmdmg 9 states "Nodal development supports the
fundamental pnnclples, goals, and poltcles of the ad,opted Metro Plan to achieve compact urban growth,
Increase residential densities, and encourage mixed-use developments In designated areas [Ref
I
TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 14] There are a numbe:r of TransPlan goals, objectives and policies that the
applicant has not speCifically addressed by the applicant, but should be Included In thiS staff report due to
the significance of the nodal aspect of thiS Master Plan proposal A definition of "nodal development" can
be found under TransPlan Policv #1 below
TransPlan Goals
Goal #1 "Integrated Transportation and Land Use System
I
Provide an Integrated transportalion and land use system that supports chOices In modes of travel and
,
development patterns that will reduce reltance on the auto and enhance Ilvablltty, economic opportUnity,
I
and the qualtty of life>> Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 3
I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma The reqUired Final Master Plan will Incorporate condllions of approval that will
Implement TransPlan Goal #1
TransPlan Oblectlves
Objective #2 "Improve transportatIOn system safety through deSign, operations and maintenance,
system Improvements, support facllttles, public informatIOn, and law enforcement efforts" Ref TransPlan
Chapter 2, Page 5 I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma Improvements along Marcola Road, 31st Street will be conditions of approval If
I
thiS Master Plan application In addition, as discussed on Pages 43 and 44 of thiS staff report,
I
Improvements to the Bike Path on EWEB's utility cOrridor may also be reqUired (by EWEB, not the City)
I
Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies with
Objective #2
TransPlan PoliCies
Land Use Policy #1 Nodal Development
"Apply the nodal development strategy In areas selected by each junsdlctlon that have Identified potential
I
for thiS type of transportalion-efficlent land use pattern
I
PoliCY Defmltlon/lntent Nodal development supports mixed land uses In deSignated areas to mcrease
I
opportunities for people to Itve near their jobs and to make shorter tnps for a vanety of purposes Nodal
I
development also supports the use of alternatIVe modes of transportatIOn ThiS poltcy refines and
,
expands eXisting Metro Plan concepts and poliCY direction that proVide for mixed-use development and
higher average reSidential denSities In certain areaslof the Eugene-Spnngfield region ThiS poltcy IS not
Intended to Itmlt the types of nodal development patterns Nodal development areas may va/}' In the
I
amount, type, and onentatlon of commerCial, CIVIC, and employment uses, bUilding Size, amount and
types of reSidential uses, and commercial intensity 'The nodes Will be pedestnan-fnendly environments
I
with a mix of land uses, Includmg publiC open spaces that are pedestnan-, translt-, and blcycle-onented
I
Nodes Will have commercial cores that contain a compatible mix of retaIl, office, employment, and CIVIC
I
uses The amount and types of commerCial and CIVIC uses In the core should be consIstent with the type
of nodal development center The core should be adjacent to a frequently serviced transit stop Nodal
development centers Will Include a mIx of hOUSing types that achIeve at least an average denSity that IS
wIthin the medium-density range for reSidentIal uses [compliance with thiS Trans Plan Policy automatically
requires compact and dense development] "Ref ITranSPlan Chapter 2, Page 15
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma The nodal strategy has been Implemented thiS site (approximately 80 aces)
I
with the approval of the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendments earlier thiS year ThiS IS the
28
core of the "nodal concept" In order to assure that the nodal concept IS a continuing aspect of this
master Plan, the required Phasing Plan must guarantee compliance with this concept through the life of
the Master Plan (see Pages 52- 57 of this staff report) Based on staffs response, as conditioned
elsewhere In this staff report, this applicaton complies with Land Use Policy 1
Land Use Policy #5 Implementation of Nodal Development
"Wlthm three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the NO, Nodal Development designatIOn to areas
selected by each junsdlctlon, adopt and apply measures to protect designated nodes from mcompatlble
development and adopt a schedule for completIOn of nodal plans and Implementmg ordmances" Ref
TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 10
Staff ResDonse/FmdmQ ThiS site was designated a "proposed Nodal Development Area" (7C) In
TransPlan ThiS designation was Implemented by the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendments
earlier thIS year Based on staffs response, thiS application complies With Land Use Policy 5
TDM Policy #3 Congestion Management
"Implement TOM strategies to manage demand at congested locations" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page
10 '
Staff ResDonse/FmdmQ Marcola Road IS classified as a Minor Arterial and Will be,the primary access
to the proposed development 31st Street IS classified as a Major Collector and does not currently have
Sidewalks The applicant has proposed traffic signals to manage demand on Marcola Road, but staff IS
requiring the construction of round-a bouts and a frontage road to provide safe backing movements for
residents on the south Side of Marcola Road The applicant IS not volunteering any Improvements along
the 31st Street frontage ThiS Issue IS discussed on Pages 35 to 37 of thiS staff report Based on staffs
response, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies With TDM Policy 3
TSI Roadway Policy #4 Access Management
"Manage the roadway system to preserve safety and operational effiCiency by adoptmg regulatIOns to
manage access to roadways and applYing these regulations to deCISions related to approving new or
modified access to the roadway system" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 11
Staff ResDonse/FmdmQ The proposed development Will necessitate access to both Marcola Road and
31" Street As stated above, staff will require the construction of round-abouts and a frontage road to
proVide safe backing movements for reSidents on the south Side of Marcola Road and Sidewalks along
31 st Street (See Pages 35 to 37 of thiS staff report) Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere
In thiS staff report, thiS application complies With TSI Roadway Policy 4
TSI TranSit Policy #1 TranSit Improvements
"Improve transit service and facilities to Increase the system's accessibility, attractiveness, and
convenience for all users, including the transportation disadvantaged populatIOn" Ref TransPlan Chapter
2, Page 11
Staff ResDonse/FmdmQ L TD Will require two bus stops In the area of Marcola Road and 28th Streets
In addition, L TD has requested that the applicant reserve space for two bus stops on Martin Drive Based
on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies WIth TSI
TranSit Policy 1
TSI Bicycle Policy #1 Bikeway System and Support FaCIlities
"Construct and Improve the region's bikeway system and proVide bicycle system support facilities for both
new development and redevelopment/expansion" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 11
Staff ResDonse/FmdmQ Staff has discussed the EWEB Bike Path Issue elsewhere In thiS staff report
Whether EWEB Will require reconstruction of the Bike Path IS their deCISion Based on staffs response, as
may conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies With TSI BIcycle Policy 1
29
TSI Bicycle Policy #2 Bikeways on Artenals andl Collectors
"ReqUire bikeways along new and reconstructed arlenal and major collector streets" Ref TransPlan
Chapter 2, Page 11 I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma There are already bike paths along the frontages of Marcola Road and 31 st
Street Development of this site may require alteration andlor Improvement of these paths Based on
I
staffs response, as may conditioned elsewhere In this staff report, this application complies with TSI
Bicycle Policy 2 I
TSI Bicycle Policy #3 Bikeway Connections to New Development
"ReqUire bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood actiVity centers and majOr
destmatlons' Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 11 I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma As stated elsewhere In this staff report, EWEB controls the access from the
I
thIs site across their property to the Bike Path Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In
thIs staff report, this appllcallon can comply With TSII Bicycle PoliCY 3
TSI Pedestnan Policy #1 Pedestrian EnVironment
"ProVide for a pedestnan enVironment that IS well mtegrated With adjacent land uses and IS deSigned to
I
enhance the safety, comforl, and convemence ofwalkmg" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 12
I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma Except for the EWEB Bike Path conneclivlty Issue already discussed, the
I
plans submitted proVide for an Integrated pedestnan environment This application complies With TSI
Pedestnan Policy 1
TSI Pedestrian Policy #2 Contmuous and Direct Routes
'Provlde for a contmuous pedestnan network With reasonably direct travel routes between destmatlon
pomts" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 12 I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma The plans submitted prOVide for a continuous reasonably direct pedestnan
I
network from the reSidential portion of the site to the commercial portion of the site and Within the
I
commercial portions of the site This application complies With TSI Pedestnan Policy 2
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma
TSI Pedestrian Policy #3 Sidewalks
""Construct Sidewalks along urban area arlenal and collector roadways, except freeways Ref TransPlan
Chapter 2, Page 12 I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma Sidewalks Will be required along the frontages of Marcola Road and 31st
I
Streets Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies
With TSI Pedestnan PoliCY 3 I
CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned above, cntenon 5 13-125B has been met
I
rCRITERION - 5 13-125C 1 "Proposed on-site and off-Site public and pnvate Improvements shall be
I
suffiCient to accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacity reqUirements of publiC
I
faCilities plans, and proVISions shall be made to assure construction of off-Site Improvements m
conjunction With a schedule of the phasmg"
STAFF NOTE The SDC reqUirements referenced In thiS cntenon are related to those standards that
are necessary for the review and approval of thiS Master Plan application, but are typically outSide of the
development standards that are contained In SDC qhapters 3 and 5 referenced and evaluated under
cntenon 5 13-125B ,above The development standards contained In SDC Chapter 4 are referenced and
evaluated, below
30
SDC SECTION 41-100/4 2-10014 3-100. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS
SDC SECTION 4 2-105 - PUBLIC STREETS
Applicant's Response "The transportation network Illustrated on the Villages at Marcola
Meadows Master Plan (see Sheet S, Master Plan illustration and Sheet 11, Street SectIons) meets
the reqUirements of SDC Section 4 2-10SA 1 by being consistent With the location of streets
shown generally In TransPlan and the City'S Conceptual Local Street Map The Master Plan IS
consistent With the layouts In TransPlan and Conceptual Local Street Map In shOWing a north-
south, and west-east trending street at the location of the proposed Martin Drive right-of-way
prOViding access to future reSidential development, also consistent With applicable plans and the
SDC ThiS street serves as the "Main Street" for the core nodal development area considered for
the site ThiS configuratIOn IS generally meets the reqUirements established In SDC Section 4 2-
10SA 1 a All future development on the site Will have frontage and access to a publiC street as
reqUired In SDC Section 4 2-10SA 2 The dedication of all publiC streets Will be made consistent
With SDC SectIOn 4 2-10SA 2 and B as part of a Tentative SubdiVISion Plan applicatIOn upon
approval of the Villages at Marcola Meadows Master Plan The accompanYing TraffiC Impact
AnalYSIS (Attachment 3 1, Master Plan TraffiC Impact AnalYSIS) demonstrates that the proposed
street network on-site and associated off-Site transportation Improvements (see Attachment 3 3,
Marcola Meadows MitigatIOn TraffiC Engineering Study) Will minimize Identified traffiC Impacts as
reqUired In SDC Section 4 2-10SA 3 Street right-of-way and roadway Widths as proposed are
consistent With the standards In SDC Section 4 2-10SC Table 4 2-1, and the functional
claSSifIcations of streets Identified on Sheet 11, Street Sections are consistent With SDC SectIOn
4 2-10SD "
The applicant also submitted the follOWing excerpt from a letter written by staff In 2006 "A meeting was
held In the office of Crandall Arambula on July fh Cynthia Pappas, ASSistant City Manager, Colin
Stephens, Planning Supervisor and I represented the City You and members of your deSign team
also attended That meeting resulted In a Final Recommendation Memo prepared by Crandall
Arambula which IS an attachment to thiS letter (Attachment 1) Inco/TJoratlnQ recommendation
from Crandall Arambula Will aid vou and Mr Martin to obtain entitlements for the DroDosed
Marcola Meadows deve/oDment "[emphasIs added by the applicant] Portions of the Crandall Arambula
recommendations are also attached "B PrOVide landscape separation between Sidewalk and
street", "B PrOVide one length of on-street parking for entire length of all reSidential blocks" and
"C PrOVide landscaped curb extensions at all intersectIOns"
Staff ResDonse/FlndlnQ In response to the applicant's latter statement, Crandall Arambula, a
Planning/Design firm In Portland experienced In mixed use developments, was hired at City expense In
2006 to perform a "peer review" of the proposed development plan shown to staff Although the applicant
Incorporated all but one of the Crandall Arambula's 6 recommendations (see Attachment 7 for the full
letter explaining the recommendaltons), staff believes those recommendations were conceptual and did
not anticipate the transportation safety Issues raised by staff below
EXisting Street System Abutting the site on the south, Marcola Road IS a three-lane minor arterial street
that proVides one motor vehicle lane In each direction, a center two-way left-turn lane and bicycle lanes
EXisting Improvements Include curb/gutter, Sidewalks, low pressure sodium (LPS) street lighting and
street trees Single family reSidential development extends along the south Side of Marcola Road
opposite the site Abutting the site on the east for a distance of approximately 1,700 feet north of Marcola
Road, 28th/31" Street IS a three-lane minor arterial street that proVides one motor vehicle lane In each
direction, a center two-way left-turn lane and bicycle lanes, Improvements Include curb/gutter, Sidewalks,
low pressure sodium (LPS) street lighting and street trees North of that pOint ('U' Street) the roadway
transitions to a two-lane asphalt mat With roadSide ditches Land to the east of Marcola Road opposite
the site IS developed as IighUmedlum industrial (LMI) for approximately Y. mile north of Marcola Road,
and low denSity reSidential (LOR) north of that pOint The Marcola Road/28th Street intersection IS
controlled by a multi-phase traffic Signal Pierce Parkway, Short Street, 'U' Street, 'V' Street and 'W'
Street are controlled by stop signs at their intersections With 28th/31st Street
31
SDC Section 4 2-105 G 2 requires that whenever a proposed land divIsion or other development will
Increase traffic on the City street system and that development has any unimproved street frontage
abutting a fully Improved street, that street frontage shall be fully Improved to City specifications The
applicant has proposed Improvements along Marcola Blvd and 28'h Street (up to the intersection With U
Street) dunng Phase 1 construction The property frontage along 31" Street (from U Street north) has not
been proposed for Improvement until Phase 4 Improvement of the street frontage along 31" Street Will
require relocation of the eXisting storm drainage conveyance ditch to obtain necessary pavement Widths
"Table 4.2-1
Street Right-at-Way and Curb- To-Curb WIdth SpecIfications
Tvpe Of Street MInimum Right-of-Way Mmimum Curb To Curb
Major Artenal 100' 76'
Minor Artenal 70' 48'
Collector 60' 36'(3)
Local Street
<15 percent slope (1) 50' 36'
>15 percent slope (1) 40' 28'(2)
<1200'length and <1000 40' 28'
vehIcle tnps per day
Cul-de-sac bulb 83' 70'
Alley 20' 20'(4)
(1) Ie, the average slope of the development area
(2) 20' streets are allowed WIth approved parking bays of 8'x 24' per vehIcle
(3) AddItIOnal nght-of-way may be reqUIred to accommodate a center turn lane where slgmficant
volumes of left-turn traffIC occur
(4) Alleys do not have curbs, 20' IS the entIre paving wIdth"
SDC Table 4 2, above, speCifies that local streets shall be 36 feet Wide In 50-foot Wide nghts of way
except where they are less than 1,200 feet In length and carry fewer than 1,000 vehicle tnps per day
Local streets Within the residential areas are proposed to be 28 feet Wide Virtually all of the proposed
east-west streets exceed 1,200 feet In length Parking on one Side of the street IS proposed, and curb
extensions are proposed at street intersections As a result, usable roadway Width IS limited to 20-feet
throughout the network, including at approaches to sections With sharply curved alignments, and at cross
street and alley Intersections The applicant must propose streets that conform to SDC reqUirements and
Vehicle turning movement analyses uSing AASHTO passenger car deSign vehicle for roadway seclions
and intersections where proposed usable roadway Width IS less than 28 feet The applicant has prOVided
the AASHTO passenger-car vehicle turning movement analyses as descnbed above ThiS analYSIS
indicates that, In general, the proposed street intersection deSigns would be adequate to accommodate
passenger-car deSign vehicles The reqUirements of SDC Table 4 2 remain to be addressed The
proposed 50-foot Wide street nghts-of-way would be adequate to construct a city-standard 36-foot Wide
local street With curbSide Sidewalk In conformance With SDC The Final Marcola Meadows Master Plan
should depict reVised street Widths for sections of the east-west streets that meet the requirements of
SDC Table 4 2 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #21. Pnor to the approval of the Final Master Plan the applicant shall
prOVided deSigns for reVised street Widths for sections of the east-west streets that meet the requirements
of SDC Table 4 2 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
Several public street Intersections and changes In direction feature bump-outs, redUCing lane Width from
28 feet to 20 feet, which Will restnct maneuverability of fire apparatus to make a turn In addition, the
proposed Martin Dnve features traffic Islands which Irestnct fire apparatus maneuverability even further
32
Based on a wall to wall turn radius of 45 feet, fire apparatus would have to drive mto the opposite lane of
oncommg traffic Should one or more vehicles be In that lane, fire response would be blocked
Parcel 8 on Plan Sheet 8 dwelling Units (cluster townhouses) surroundmg the "qUiet open space" (as
Idenbfied on Plan Sheet 5) requires fire apparatus access due to the distance from the public street and
what may appear to be fencmg blockmg access Access will have to be upgraded to fire apparatus
access road standards reqUiring 20 feet clear width drivable all-weather drivable surface capable of
supportmg an 80,000 Ib Imposed load, not less than 28 feet mSlde turn radII at turns, and "No Parkmg-
Fire Lane" slgnage on both sides of the access
Plan Sheet 5 shows four dwelling Units accessible With only alley access from three pomts on unnamed
public roads and an additional two dwelling Units accessible from an alley With one pomt off an unnamed
publiC road on the west side These houses are In the section Identified on Plan Sheet 8 as located m
Parcel 10 These access pOints will have to be upgraded to fire apparatus access road standards
reqUiring 20 feet clear width all-weather drivable surface capable of supportmg an 80,000 Ib Imposed
load, not less than 28 feet mSlde turn radII at turns, and "No Parkmg-Flre Lane" slgnage on both sides of
the access
Plan Sheet 11, Detail 3 shows cross section of the total lane width In each dlrecbon of 19 feet on the
portions of Martm Drive With a 10 foot center median ThiS IS one foot short of the minimum 20 feet clear
width required by the fire code An additional foot In width for each lane will meet thiS requirement
Plan Sheet 11, Detail 6 shows the cross secbon of an alley way It shows total travel lane cross section of
only 18 feet For those alleyways that are required access as mentioned In #2 and #3, the full drlvmg
width IS required to be 20 feet per 2007 Springfield Fire Code 503 2 1 Note Table 42-1 states that alleys
reqUire 20 feet of pavmg Width
Belle Boulevard between 28th Street and the access to Parcels 6 and 7 on Plan Sheet 9 IS proposed to be
36-feet Wide With three 12-foot lanes at mtersectlons, and 28-feet Wide With two-lanes and parkmg on one
Side north of that pomt The TIA does not contam a traffic volume estimate for the proposed 28-foot Wide
section, so It IS unclear whether It would meet SDC street-width criteria Because Belle Boulevard links
Martm Way and 28th Street, which are both collectors havmg on-street bicycle lanes, It IS likely to attract
Significant amounts of bicycle travel Additional lane Width IS needed to safely accommodate shared use
by auto and bicycle traffic Street deSigns should be revised for Belle Boulevard between Martm Way and
28th Street to provide minimum curbSide lane Widths of 15 feet
SDC Subsection 4 2-1 05K states "Street names are aSSIgned as specIfIed In the Spnngfleld
MUniCIpal Code, 1997" The applicant mtends to utilize Martm Drive and Belle Boulevard These
proposed street names Will require a Street Name amendment application
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #22 Prior to Fmal Master Plan approval, and consistent With SDC
Section 4 2-105 G 2, the applicant shall revise the proposed Phasmg Plan to the satisfaction of the
Development Services Director to mclude construction of 2/3 street Improvements along their entire
property frontage of 31" Street m Phase 1 Construction of these street Improvements, Including any
necessary relocation of the eXlsbng ditch along 31" Street, shall occur under proposed Phase 1 Public
Improvement Project
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #23 Prior to the approval of the Fmal Master Plan, the applicant shall
depict a deSign to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that proVides 30 feet of paved Width (two 15-foot
lanes) With no on-street parking for the section of Belle Boulevard north of the Parcel 6/7 access
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #24. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
depict a deSign to the satisfaction of the City Engmeer that proVides a minimum 41-foot Wide street Width
to proVide two 15-foot through lanes and an 11-foot Wide left-turn lane where needed for the section of
Belle Boulevard south of the Parcel 6/7 access
33
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #25 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
I
comply With all street Improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to resolve all Identified street
width Issues In order to comply With SDC Table 4 2-1 '
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #26 Concurrent With the submittal of the SubdiVISion Tentative Plan
I
application for Phase 1, the applicant shall also submit a Street Name Change application In order to
allow the use of the proposed street names In thiS Master plan application
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Applicant's Response - General A Traffic Impact AnalYSIS (TIA) evaluatmg the performance of
I
eX/stmg and planned facIlities as a result of the development proposed by thiS application has
I
been performed That T1A (Attachment 3 1, Master Plan TraffiC Impact AnalYSIS) IS submitted
I
concurrently With thiS wntten statement and the findmgs of that analYSIS are hereby mcorporated
I
by reference The eVidence m the application demonstrates that the proposed on-site and pnvate
I
Improvements are suffiCient to accommodate the proposed development and schedule of phasmg
and the capacity reqUIrements of applicable publiC facilities plans On-site Improvements mclude
publiC streets and utilities wlthm the boundanes: of the subject property, mcluding an extensive
multIUse trail system Off-Site publiC faCIlities outside of the boundanes of the subject property
I
mclude street and mtersectIon Improvements As explamed elsewhere m thiS application and m
the accompanymg reports (e g , Attachment 6, Stormwater Master Plan), the eVidence m the
I
submIttal demonstrates that off-Site faCilities a~ suffiCient to accommodate the proposed
development and schedule of phasmg The off-Site transportation faCIlities, as explamed m
I
Attachment 3 1, TraffiC Impact AnalYSIS (TIA), are suffiCient to accommodate the proposed phased
I
development at applicable mobility standards As explamed m the TIA, the development shall
I
develop mfrastructure m coordmatlon With the phases of development m order to maximize
I
mternal tnp generation. See Attachment 31, Marcola Meadows TraffiC Impact AnalYSIS for more
mformatlon on the coordmatlOn of phasmg and traffiC generation (tnp cap) begmnmg at p 11
through p 15 SDC Sectlon513-125(C) reqUIres that off-Site publiC Improvements, mcludmg
I
streets, be suffiCient to accommodate the proposed phased development and capacity
I
requirements of publiC facilities plans and to assure construction of off-Site Improvements m
,
conjunctIOn With the schedule of phasmg The ''I't'al development (I e , publiC mfrastructure, on-
site dnves and common/ open space areas of Phase 1 and the home Improvement center of Phase
2) proposed m the Master Plan application IS scheduled to be open m 2008 Accordmgly, the
applicant must demonstrate that off-Site publiC faCility capacity IS available to accommodate
,
Impacts from the home Improvement store openmg m 2008 The TIA explams that the off-Site
I
publiC Improvements mcludmg streets will be suffiCient to accommodate the proposed Initial
I
development phases As such, the City can find that the LOS at the applicable mtersectlons Will
I
be either Improved to a level that IS better than or no worse than the eXlstmg LOS upon
completion of the Initial development." I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma For transportation review purposes the pnmary documents applicable under
I
thiS criterion are the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area transportation system plan (TransPlan) the
I
1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) and the SDC TransPlan IS a functional plan of the Metro Plan It
I
establishes the generallocallon, functional claSSification and performance standards for arterial and
collector roadways Within the planning area The OHP establishes the funcllon and performance
I
standards for state highways The SDC speCifies the right-of-way and street Width reqUirements for
streets Within Springfield I
Functional ClaSSification of Streets The proposed Martin Drive collector street and would Implement
TransPlan Project #777 In the "New Collectors" category ,
I
Level-of-servlce Standards TransPlan's TSI Roadway PoliCY # 2 Motor Vehicle Level of SelVlce
.
establishes performance standards for local faCIlities and Includes OHP mobility standards for state
faCIlities as follows
34
"1 Use motor vehicle level of service standards to mamtam acceptable and reliable performance on the
roadway system These standards shall be used for
b Identlfymg capacity defiCiencies on the roadway system
c Evaluatmg the Impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation plans, acknowledged
comprehensive plans and land-use regulatIOns, pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-12-0060)
d Evaluatmg development applications for consistency With the land-use regulations of the applicable
local government jUnsdlctlon
2 Acceptable and reliable service IS defined by the followmg levels of service under peak hour traffiC
conditions Level of Service E wlthm Eugene's Central Area Transportation Area, and Level of
Service 0 elsewhere
3 Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan shall be applied on state faCilities m the
Eugene-Spnngfleld metropolitan area n
The above TransPlan Levels of Service (LOS) standards are based on criteria contamed In the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the National Research CouncIl's Transportation Research Board
For signalized mtersectlons the HCM uses seconds of average-vehicle delay to define LOS Tables 6
and 7 m the 1999 OHP establish mobility standards based on Volume-to-Capaclty (v/c) ratios
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Staff ResDonse/FmdmQ The applicant submitted the Marcola Meadows Master Plan Traffic Impact
AnalYSIS (TIA), prepared by Access Engmeerlng, that evaluated potential Impacts of the site development
assummg the proposed phasmg schedule and bUild-out by 2015 The TIA applied the above deSCribed
mobility standards and analyzed traffiC operations at the followmg locations
. Mohawk Boulevard/19th Street @ Marcola Road/Q Street
. Marcola Road @ Martin Drive
. Marcola Road @ Home Improvement Center Driveway
. Marcola Road @ 28th Street
. 28th Street @ Pierce Parkway
. 28'h Street @ Short Street
. 31st Street@ Martm DriveN Street
. 31st Street @ Yolanda Avenue
. 19th Street@ Hayden Bridge Road
The TIA concluded that
1) The Marcola Road/Martm Drive, Marcola Road/Home Improvement Center Driveway, and Belle
Boulevard and Martm Drive Intersections on 28th/31st Street would not meet traffic Signal warrants In
2008
2) The southbound left-turn movements at Marcola Road/Martm Drive and Marcola RoadlHOME
IMPROVEMENT CENTER Driveway would operate at LOS E m 2008 ThiS 15 an acceptable level of
service for a smgle mmor roadway movement
3) The Marcola Road/Martm Drive and Marcola Road/ Home Improvement Center Driveway
mtersecllons would meet traffic Signal warrants at some pOint prior to anticipated site bUild-out m
2015
Thus, from a capacity standpOint eXlstmg and proposed transportation faCilities would be suffiCient to
meet applicable performance standards for roadways Impacted by traffic generated by the proposed
development at bUlld-out m 2015 However, other operational safety concerns are raised by the
applicant's proposal The applicant proposes to mstall traffic Signals as part of Phase 1, m 2008, on
Marcola Road at Martm Drive and the Home Improvement Center driveway
. Assummg construction of Phases 1, 2 and 3, the applicant's TIA concludes that these traffic Signals
would not be warranted In 2008, and that mtersectlon levels of service would meet adopted mobility
standards (LOS 0 or better) Without Signalization
'35
. The City has had success with roundabout Intersection designs In lieu of signalization, and the
I
benefits of roundabouts are well documented (See Attachment S, Federal Highway Administration
brochure) They Include I
o Lives saved' Up to a 90% reduction In fatalllles . 76% reduction In injury crashes' 30-40%
I
reduction In pedestrian crashes' 75% fewer, conflict pOints than four way intersections
o Slower vehicle speeds (under 30 mph) . Drivers have more time to judge and react to other
I
cars or pedestrians' Advantageous to olderland novice drivers' Reduces the severity of crashes
. Keeps pedestrians safer
o Efficient traffic flow' 30-50% Increase In traffic capacity
I
o Reduction In pollution and fuel use' Improved traffic flow for intersections that handle a high
I
number of left turns' Reduced need for storage lanes
I
o Money saved' No signal eqUipment to Install and repair' Savings estimated at an average of
I
$5,000 per year In electricity and maintenance costs' Service life of a roundabout IS 25 years (vs
the 1 O-year service life of signal equipment) I
o Communrty benefits. Traffic calming' AesthetiC landscaping
I
. Construction of these signals before they are warranted would burden the City With undeSirable signal
I
maintenance expense and preclude consideration of better traffic control alternatives
I
. As depicted In the submittal, the Signal-controlled left-turn lanes at these intersections would create
I
traffic conflicts for vehicles uSing eXisting reSidential driveways on the south Side of Marcola Road
I
These conflicts would restrict movements at these driveways to rlght-In-rlght-out only, which would
force users to travel out of direction and make ull-turns In order to approach the driveways from a
Single direction
FollOWing diSCUSSions With staff, the applicant submitted a traffic analYSIS indicating that, due to an
Imbalance In traffic flows, roundabouts would not belthe preferred chOice of intersection control In
addition, the applicant submitted draWings that depict In a conceptual way how either a frontage road or a
I
bypass road might be constructed to address the reSidential driveway Impacts of the proposed Signals
I
The City Traffic Engineer has performed a more detailed roundabout analYSIS uSing the traffic volume
I
projeclions from the submitted TIA Results of thiS analYSIS show that Single-lane roundabouts would
I
proVide accepted levels of service at the two intersections upon bUild-out of the proposed development,
I
and that U-turn opportunities proVided by roundabouts would help mitigate some Impacts to the affected
reSidential driveways I
The applicant disputes the conclUSions of the City Traffic Engineer and argues that driveway conflicts
I
result from eXisting development not In compliance With current standards for access control on artenal
streets The applicant continues to propose traffic Signal control With limited mitigation of driveway
Impacts as follows I
"The preferred optIon skews the mtersectlon crosswalks to mcorporate at least one of the eXlstmg
I
dnveways at each mtersectlon The two other optIons submItted herem utIlize eXlstmg publIC
I
nght-of-way to Its maJamum extent and document that solutIons wlthm eXlstmg nght-of-way may
I
be pOSSIble Any other alternatIves would requIre more than proportIonal dedIcatIon of property
I
and or development and dedIcatIon of pnvate property outSIde the boundanes of the
development" ApplIcant TestImony Regardmg Marcola SIgnals, November 27, 2007
Staff concludes that
. Roundabouts are the appropriate Intersection forms at these two localions because they would meet
I
adopted mobility standards, prOVide greater safety, and be less expensive to operate
. A frontage road IS needed to maintain safe and effiCient access to the reSidential driveways that would
be Impacted by the proposed development I
The Transportation Planning Engineer has determined that
. The sole purpose of the new Martin Way collector street IS to serve the Marcola Meadows Master
I
Plan site Absent development of the proposed Villages at Marcola Meadows, eXisting
36
transportation facilities abutting the property would be adequate to meet current and future
transportation needs
. The sole purpose of the proposed Home Improvement Center driveway onto Marcola Road IS to
serve development on the Marcola Meadows Master Plan site Absent development of the
proposed Villages at Marcola Meadows, the driveway would not be needed
. Impacts to eXisting residential driveways along the south side of Marcola Road flow directly and
exclusively from the applicant's proposal for providing access to the Marcela Meadows Master
Plan site
The above facts demonstrate that
1) The need for the subject right-of-way IS directly related to the proposed development
2) The proportion of needed right-of-way attributable to the applicant's proposal IS
1 DO-percent
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #27 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
1) Include dedication of necessary right-of-way, and provide a preliminary design acceptable to the City
Engineer for a roundabout intersection at the Marcola Road/Martin Drive Intersection
2) Provide a preliminary design acceptable to the City Engineer and the Springfield Fire Marshal for a
frontage road located Within the eXisting Marcola Road right-of-way that maintainS safe and effiCient
access for vehicles uSing eXisting residential driveways on the south side of Marcola Road opposite
the development site These Improvements as specified by the City Engineer shall be constructed as
part of the proposed Phase 1 Infrastructure Improvements
3) At the Marcola Road/Home Improvement Center Driveway intersection
a) The applicant shall provide financial security acceptable to the City Engineer In an amount equal
to the average of the sum of estimated construction costs for traffic signal control and a
roundabout intersection to provide for traffic control at thiS intersection when warranted, the
decIsion to construct traffic control IS vested With the City Engineer,
b) Dedicate right-of-way acceptable to the City Engineer to accommodate roundabout construction
LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT
Lane TranSit District (L TO) has the following comments on thiS application "Until the reSidential uses
develop, there will be no need for transit faCilities on Martin Drive At that time, there will possibly be two-
way bus traffic on Martin and potentially three to four stop locations on each side of the street For now,
we are recommending two standard (no pull-out) bus stops on Marcola Road fronting the site One would
be around 300 feet west of 28th near the pedestrian COrridor, and the other would be approximately 100
feet west of Martin near that pedestrian connection These should be listed as "possible" or "conceptual
locations to be confirmed by L TO" so we don't lock them Into hard locations at the tentative stage We
can provide more detail on the public Improvements There would also likely be new stops located on the
south side of Marcola opposite the above mentioned locations, but these need to be more carefully Sited
due to eXisting developed homes on that side of the street ThiS IS a good time to plan for an area beyond
the required right-of-way for transit faCilities such as shelters If deSired by the developer, however, L TO
will not be reqUiring any special right-of-way prOVIsions for those amenities or pull-outs"
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #28 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
coordinate With L TO regarding the location of required bus stops The conceptual bus stops shall be
shown on the appropriate Plan Sheet
SDC SECTION 4 2-110 - PRIVATE STREETS
Applicant's Response "All streets shown on Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon are publIC as such
thIS standard does not apply"
37
SDC SECTION 4 2-115 - BLOCK LENGTH
Applicant's Response "The dIstance from the JunctIon of Marcola Road and Belle Boulevard and
I
Belle Boulevard and Martm Drive (along 28th/31st Streets) exceeds the 600 foot block length The
2ft" Street Block between Marcola Road and Belle Boulevard IS approxImately 650 feet long and IS
located opposIte PIerce Parkway, a developed street that conforms to the exceptIon standards of
SDC SectIon 4 2-115C The 28th/31st Street Block between Belle Boulevard and Martm Dnve
I
exceeds 600 feet but IS dIvIded near Its mldpomt1by the common/ open space area that IS
developed wIth a pedestnan/ bIke path and surrounds the relocated PIerce DItch and conforms to
the standards of SDC SectIon 4 2-11(C As such,lthe applIcant requests an exceptIon to the block
length standard per SDC SectIon 4 2-115A and C "
I
Staff ResDonse/FlOdma SDC Section 4 2-115 states "Block length for local streets shall not exceed
600 feet, unless the developer demonstrates that a block length shall be greater than 600 feet because of
I
the eXistence of one or more of the followmg conditions
I
A PhYSical conditIOns preclude a block length of 600 feet or less These conditions may
mclude topography or the eXlstencelof phYSical features, mcludmg but not limited to
wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, nvers, lakes or steep grades, or a resource under
protection by state or federal law, I
B BUlldmgs or other eXlstmg development on adjacent lands, mcludmg prevIOusly
subdivided but vacant lots/parcels that phYSically preclude a block length 600 feet or less,
consldermg the potential for redevelopment, or
I
C Where the extensIOn of a public street mto the proposed development would create a
I
block length exceedmg 600 feet, the total block length shall be as close to 600 feet as
possible " I
Although It IS not a public street mtersecllon, the pair opposing commercial dnveways on Belle Boulevard
I
located 200 feet north of Marcola Road effectively create a SOD-foot "block length" between that pomt
and the east-west residential street located 150 feetlsouth of Martm Dnve Wlthm the 28th/31st Street
Block between Belle Boulevard and Martm Dnve mtersectmg streets on the south/east side of 28'h/31",
and proposed dnveways opposite Short Street and l!J Street would effectively address the mtent of SDC
Section 4 2-115 I
SDC SECTION 4 2-120 - SITE ACCESS AND DRIVEWAYS
I
Applicant's Response "SpecIfic driveway wIdths and locatIons are generally not shown on the
Master Plan as they wIll be more appropriately s~ted as part of mdlvldual SubdIVIsIon or SIte Plan
ReVIew submittals for each mcrement of future development However, Sheet 5, Master Plan
I
illustratIon Illustrates the general locatIons of access pomts to each development SIte The
general publIc access entnes off Marcola Road, Martm Drive and Belle Boulevard are shown on
I
these Master Plan dIagrams and are mtended to Illustrate conformance wIth SDC SectIon 4 2-120,
I
specIfIcally the spacmg reqUIrements m SDC SectIon 4 2-120C, Table 42-2 "
I
Staff Response/Fmdlnq EXlstmg site access consists of one dnveway onto Marcola Road located 300
feet west of 28th Street, and another located at the sbuthwest corner of the Site, which IS shared with the
I
adjOining commercial development The Master Plan proposes to close the first of these dnveways and
create new dnveway accesses as follows I
1) A signalized full-access dnveway on Marcola Road centered 500 feet west of 28th Street
2) An un-signalized full-access dnveway on 28'h/31" Street opposite Short Street
3) An un-signalized full-access dnveway on 31" Street opposite 'U' Street
I
Internal access to the master plan area IS proposed via
38
1) A new collector street (Martin Way) extending south-westward through the site from a pOint on 31"
Street opposite 'V' Street to a signalized intersection with Marcola Road approximately 1,200 feet
west of 28th Street,
2) A north-south local street (Belle Boulevard) connecting Martin Way to 28th/31" Street at Pierce
Parkway,
3) A westerly extension of W' Street as a local street across the northern portion of the site, and
4) A network of streets, alleys and pnvate dnveways providing direct access to commercial development
and residential lots
Finally, the southwest boundary of the site abuts the parking lot for an adjacent developed commercial
site The two properties share a dnveway onto Marcola Road, and 16 parking spaces for the developed
site are located Within the Main Street Retail (MSR-1) portion of the master plan The Master Plan
proposes to prOVide connectivity to the adjacent site by extending a parking lot aisle eastward Into the
MSR development on Parcel 4
The level of detail available In the Marcola Meadows Master Plan does not support approval of minor site
dnveways such as the proposed un-signalized dnveways on 281h/31 'I Street opposite Short Street, and on
31" Street opposite 'U' Street Subsequent to Master Plan approval the Involved sites Will require at least
two more land-use review processes Tentative SubdiVISion and Site Plan Approval of these two
proposed access dnveways should be deferred until Tentative SubdiVISion and/or Site Plan ReView where
the necessary level of detail IS available
The Installation of dnveways on a street Increases the number of traffic conflict pOints The greater
number of conflict pOints Increases the probability of traffic crashes SDC 4 2-120 A 1 stipulates that all
developed lots/parcels shall have "an approved access "As conditioned below Ingress-egress pOints
Will be planned to faCilitate traffic and pedestnan safety on public streets as speCified In SDC Chapters 4
(Sections 4 1 to 4 3) and 5 (Sections 5 15 & 5 17), applicable zoning and or overlay dlstnct Articles, and
applicable refinement plans
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #29 Direct vehicular dnveway access to 281h/31" Streets shall not be
shown on the final Marcola Meadows Master Plan The number, location and deSign of such dnveways, If
any, shall be determined dunng the subdiVISion and/or site plan review process for speCific developments
Within the Marcola Meadows Master Plan area
SDC SECTION 4 2-125 -INTERSECTIONS
Applicant's Response "The applIcant shall desIgn and construct mtersectlons as speCIfIed m the
CIty'S Engmeenng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual Streets shall be laId out so as to
mtersect as nearly as pOSSIble at right angles The angle of mtersectlOn between two mtersectmg
streets shall be at least 80 degrees At mtersectlons, each local street shall be straIght or shall
have a radIUS greater than 400 feet for a dIstance of 100 feet from each mtersectlon "
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma Because of the compleXity of the transportation Issues regarding thiS
application, speCific diSCUSSions involVing intersections are discussed elsewhere In thiS staff report
Compliance With intersection standards shall be assured by conditions Sited elsewhere In thiS staff report
SDC SECTION 4 2-130 - VISION CLEARANCE AREAS
Applicant's Response "The applicant WIll be submlttmg proposals for slgnage and
monumentatlon on the SIte, but any and all proposals WIll ensure complIance WIth the standards
m SDC SectIon 4 2-130"
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma SDC Section 4 2-130 states
39
All comer lots/parcels shall mamtam a clear area at each access to a public street and on
I
each comer of property at the mtersectlon of two streets or a street and an alley m order to
I
provide adequate sight distance for approachmg traffic
I
No screen or other physIcal obstructIon IS permitted between 2 112 and 8 feet above the
established height of the curb m the inangular area (See FIgure 4 2-A)
I
EXCEPTION Items assocIated wIth utilities or publicly owned structures for example,
poles and sIgns, and eXlstmg street trees may be permItted
I
The clear VISIon area shall be m the shape ofa tnangle Two sIdes of the tnangle shall be
,
property Imes for a dIstance specIfied m thIs Subsecl10n Where the property Imes have
rounded comers, they are measured, by extendmg them m a straIght Ime to a pomt of
mtersectlon The thlfd sIde of the tnangle IS a Ime across the corner of the lot/parcel Jommg
I
the non-mtersectmg ends of the other two SIdes The followmg measurements shall
establish the clear VISIon areas I
Table 4 2-5
I
I Measurement Along Each
Pro e Lme
Any Street I 25 feet 1
An Aile I 15 feet 1
Any Dnveway I 10 feet 1
I
(1) These standards may be mcreased " warranted for safety reasons by the Public Works
Director" I
The applicant and successor owners Will comply with Ilhe vIsion clearance standards through the Site Plan
Review process The BUilding Safety DIvIsion regulates sign standards Sign standards are contained In the
Springfield MUnicipal Code, Sections 8 200 through 8'268 The location of signs relating to the VISion
clearance standards IS handled through the Site PlanlRevlew process The slgnage Illustrations submitted
as part of the applicant's Attachment 1, Design GUidelines, should be considered as only "1IIustrabve" for the
purposes of thiS review
B.
"A
C
Type Of IntersectIon
SDC SECTION 4 2-135 - SIDEWALKS
Applicant's Response "Setback SIdewalks and planter stnps are proposed along all streets
,
(except alleys) as shown on Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon and Sheet 11, Street SectIons
consIstent wIth SOC SectIOn 4 2-135(A) and meetmg or exceedmg the WIdth standard m SOC
SectIon 4 2-135(B) As shown on Sheet 11, Street SectIons, planter stnps along these streets WIll
meet or exceed the 4 5-foot WIdth required m SOC SectIOn 4 2-135(C) AddItIOnally, mternal
pedestnan pathways are proposed throughout the SIte, as shown on Sheet 5, Master Plan
illustratIon" I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma The applicant proposes to utilize setback Sidewalks through out the
I
development site For reasons discussed elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS concept may not be feasible
I
Compliance with Sidewalk standards shall be assured by conditions Sited elsewhere In thiS staff report
SDC SECTION 4 2-140 - STREET TREES
Applicant's Response "As Illustrated on Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon, the applicant proposes
I
to plant street trees consIstent WIth SDC Sectlo~ 4 2-140 along all publIC street frontages for a
total of approxImately 790 trees across the sIte SpecIfIc locatIons and types of mdlvldual street
trees, and consIstency WIth other proVISIons of SOC SectIon 4 2-140 will be mcluded WIth
40
Tentative SubdIVISIon Plan and SIte Plan RevIew applicatIons submItted subsequent to approval
of thIs Master Plan See Attachment 2, DesIgn GUldelmes for the proposed Street Tree lIst"
Staff ReSDonse/Fmdma SDC Section 4 2-140 states "Street trees are those trees located wlthm the
publIc nght-of-way Street trees may be located wlthm planter stnps, m mdlvldual tree wells wlthm a
sidewalk, round-abouts, or medians
A New street trees New street trees shall be at least 2 mches m caliper New street trees
shall be selected from the CIty Street Tree LIst and mstalled as speCIfied m the CIty'S
Engmeenng DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual The PublIc Works Director shall
determme whIch species are permitted or prohIbited street trees"
The applicant has submitted a Street Tree List, which the City has reviewed and agrees to In order to
guarantee street tree consistency within the development area over the hfe of the Master Plan, the Street
Tree List shall be speCifically Included In a deed restriction
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #30 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
record a deed restriction to the salisfactlon of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director
staling that the applicant and successor owners shall adhere to the approved Street Tree List
SDC SECTION 4 2-145 - STREET LIGHTING
Applicant's Response "Street lights wIll be mstalled along all publIC and pnvate streets
accordmg to SOC standards The precIse type and style of lIght fixture wIll be proposed as part of
subsequent TentatIve SubdIVISIon Plan and SIte Plan ReVIew applIcatIons
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma SDC Section 4 2-145 states "PublIc street lighting desIgn and placement IS
speCified m the City'S Engmeenng Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the Public Works
Standard ConstructIOn SpeCIfications and IS approved by the Public Works Director
A Street Ilghtmg shall be mcluded WIth all new developments or redevelopment EXlstmg
street lights shall be upgraded to current IIghtmg standards WIth all new developments or
redevelopment as determmed by the Public Works Dlfector The developer IS responsible
for street Ilghtmg mstallatlon costs
B A developer may choose to mstall decoratIve streetlights, as may be permItted m the
CIty'S Engmeenng DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual and the Public Works
Standard ConstructIon SpecIficatIons"
In addition, the Engmeenng Design Standards and Procedures Manual Section 5 02 1 B Design
Standards states"
" 4 Decoral1ve poles and fixtures shall be used on all streets wlthm any Nodal Overlay dlstnct, and all
off street public access ways and multI-use paths DecoratIVe poles and fIxtures may be used on local
streets m any zone at the optIon of the land developer All decoratIVe fixtures shall use metal halide
lamps
5 Roadway style "cobra head" fixtures, on standard poles, shall be used m all other 10cal1ons
Finally, there was oral testimony presented dUring the November 20th public hearing regarding light
pollution Additional written correspondence has been submitted to the City on this Issue The SDC does
not prOVide a definition of "light pollution" The submitted comments provide a subjective opinion
regarding light pollution cause by decorative type street lighting In Ambleslde SubdiVISion but do not
provide any quantitative assessment or reference to objective standards
41
The SDC contains private, on-site, lighting standards In SDC Section 4 5-100 These standards require a
developer to provide lighting that does not cause light pollulion Since constructIon of Ambleslde
I
SubdivIsion the City has changed ItS standard for the lighting fixture used In decorative type street light
I
Units to a "cutoff' type design, which eliminates unwanted light spillover
I
SDC SECTION 4 2-1501 SECTION 4 2-155 - BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS
I
Applicant's Response There IS no bIkeway project WIthin TransPlan IdentifIed on or adjacent to
the development sIte However, the Spnngfleld BIcycle Plan (SBP) notes a Project #18, EWEB
I
TraIl, that IS partly adjacent to the development sIte ThIS path IS Included In the SBP and IS
I
noted In Table 6-2, Project PhaSing of the SBP as Pnonty III (2009-2013) The adopted 2004
I
Wlllamalane Park and Recreation Dlstnct ComprehensIve Plan's ExISting, Planned, and
,
Proposed MultIUse Paths and BIkeways map (Map 3, p 26) shows a "EXIsting and Planned Off.
Street MultI-Use Path" along the development sIte's northern frontage SDC SectIon 4 2-150 and-
155(B) requires that development abutting propOsed bIkeways and pedestnan paths IdentifIed In
I
TransPlan or the SBP Include provIsIons for future extensIon of faCIlitIes through dedIcatIon of
easements or nght-of-way, and that Independent shared-use paths have a 12-foot minImum wIdth
The development sIte IS adjacent to the EWEB TraIl, however, no addItIOnal right-of-way or
I
easements are reqUIred for that path system In addItion to EWEB TraIl, the Master Plan
I
illustratIon (see Sheet 5) IdentIfIes other multI-use trails extending along the relocated PIerce
I
DItch, and other pathways to meet the Internal connectIVIty and CirculatIon objectIves In SDC
SectIon 3 2-625(E) These addItIonal multi-use pathways wIll also be developed consIstent WIth the
standards outlined In SDC SectIon 4 2-160(B) I
Sheets 10 and 11 also show the generalIzed locatIon and cross sectIon of a future trail system
including a multI-use pathway I .
In addItion to EWEB TraIl, the Master Plan illustratIon (see Sheet 5) IdentifIes other multI-use
traIls extending along the relocated PIerce Ditch~ and other pathways to meet the mternal
connectIVIty and CirculatIOn objectIves In SDC SectIon 3 2-625(E) These addItIonal multI-use
I
pathways WIll also be developed consIstent WIth the standards outlined In SDC SectIon 4 2-160(B)
I
Staff's Response/Fmdmg The applicant demonstrates connectivity via a private network of pathways
I
between reSidential and commercial areas and Within proposed open spaces, and from the proposed
I
development to the EWEB Bike Path In order to comply With Condition 13 of ZOning Map Amendment
Ordinance 6196 Staff concurs With the applicant's state merit concerning the Bike Path Itself which IS
I
specifically discussed under the accessway tOpiC, below However, the majority of the proposed
pathways, as shown on Plan Sheet 8, are proposed to be constructed privately, With the Phase 1 Public
Improvements I
Wlllamalane states "The applicant discusses the proposed multI-use pathways along the relocated
I
PIerce Dllch The subJect of the CIted provIsIons IS Dubllc facilities WhIle we do not assert that the
proposed pathways are necessanly reqUired In order to satIsfy applicable cntena related to publIC
I
facilItIes, we would pOint out that they don't fully qualify as such unless they are In publIC easements
I
ensunng the public's nght to use them For purposes of clanty, we recommend that the Master Plan state
I
eIther that the pathways Will be In public easements and Intended for public use, or that they Will be
I
pnvate Improvements (that the pUblic mayor may not be allowed to use, depending on the deCISIon of
I
future property owners) (The Master Plan should be SImIlarly clear on the Intended future ownershIp and
I
use of the proposed Oak Prame Park, which as we understand It, IS proposed to be a pnvate park )"
I
The applicant has not proposed a pathway agreement of any form to deSignate maintenance
responSibility for the paths I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #31. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director
that states that all paths and accessways proposed to be constructed by the applicant and successor
42
owners shall be private The applicant shall also prepare a pathwaylaccessway maintenance agreement
as part of the reqUired deed restriction
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #32 Prior to approval of the SubdivIsion Tentative Plan for the subject
property and any associated construction, the applicant shall submit an agreement designating
maintenance responsibility of the proposed private pathways as shown on Plan Sheet 8 to the satlsfaclion
of the City Attorney, the Development Services Director and the Public Works Dlfector
SDC SECTION 4 2-160 - ACCESSWA YS
Applicant's Response "The applicant met WIth representatIves from Willamalane, the CIty of
Springfield, Spnngfield School Dlstnct and EWEB on September 13, 2007 At thIS meetIng
dISCUSSIon regarding the bIke path was made and It was determined that the applIcant WIll reqUIre
receIpt of an access! use easement from EWEB to connect the projects pathways with the pathway
on EWEB property EWEB personnel saId they would proVIde dIrectIon In thIS regard as part of the
development reVIew commIttee (DRC) actIvIty follOWing submIttal of a master plan"
Applicant Testimony Regardmg Access to EWEB Property Submitted on November 27, 2007 "The
applIcant has met and communicated a number of tImes WIth EWEB representatIves regarding the
County's bIke path on EWEB property and the applicant's proposal to prOVIde two or more paved
pathway connectIOns from the applIcant's proposed development onto the EWEB property and
connect to the County pathway To date, EWEB has stated that It would be WIlling to receIve an
access easement request for their consIderatIOn EWEB representatIves noted that there IS
precedence for granting such a request as It has been done elsewhere along the corrIdor It was
mentIoned In these meetmgs that the appropnate timing for such a request would be WIth an
applIcatIOn for the adjacent reSIdentIal subdIVISIon The applicant believes a reasonable Master
Plan CondItIon of Approval In thIS regard IS Pnor to approval of a TentatIve SubdIVISIon
applIcation for the adjacent reSIdentIal element of Marcola Meadows furnIsh EWEB access
approval or eVIdence that EWEB WIll not permIt saId proposed access"
Staff's Response/Fmdmg A 60 foot-Wide strip of land owned by Eugene Water and ElectriC Board
(EWEB) abuts the site on the north ThiS parcel contains a major underground water line and an
overhead electrical transmiSSion line A 10-foot Wide paved pedestrlan/blcycle path extends along the
northern boundary of the EWEB parcel ThiS faCIlity IS owned and operated by Lane County under permit
from EWEB The applicant proposes to construct three accessway "connections" from the proposed
development area across the EWEB parcel to the eXisting paved faCIlity ThiS construction Will reqUire a
permit from the property owner (EWEB), and an executed "operalion and maintenance agreement" that
deSignates operational authOrity and maintenance responsibility for the accessways The applicant
submitted supplemental written testimony to the City on November 27, 2007, stating they have contacted
EWEB about the proposed accessway connections Documentation from EWEB has not been prOVided to
the City shOWing approval for the proposed accessway connections as of thiS date Staff contacted EWEB
and confirmed they might be Willing to receive an access easement request for conSideration from the
applicant However, staff has a dilemma regarding a condition of approval of the applicant over property
(EWEB's) not In control by the applicant Granting the accessway easements reqUires approval by the
EWEB Board Any conSideratIon reqUired by EWEB In order to grant the accessway easements Will be
between the applicant and EWEB, not the City As part of the oral testimony dUring the public hearing
held on November 20, 2007 the applicant stated" that EWEB might Wish the applicant to do some
Improvements to the bicycle path In return for that access permit" ThiS IS an example of one sort of
conSideration EWEB might conSider
The Master Plan submittal shows three proposed connections to the bike path Above, the applicant
refers to two or more Staff does not want to see a reduction In the number of proposed accessways
The proposed accessways are necessary In order to comply With Condition 6 of Zoning Map Amendment
Ordinance 6196
43
In addition, the northwest boundary of the site abuts an eXisting developed residential subdivIsion An
eXisting paved accessway extends from Loch Dnve In this subdiVISion to the western site boundary The
applicant's proposed connection to this eXisting shall be a private facIlity as discussed above
I
Any constructed accessways shall require an executed "operation and maintenance agreement" that
I
designates operational authority and maintenance responsibility for the accessways This shall be
I
guaranteed by a deed restriction applicable to the applicant or successor owners
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #33 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall furnish
I
documentation to the City from EWEB satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Development Services
I
Dlfector demonstrating the applicant has permission to construct the three proposed pnvate accessways
I
on EWEB property If the applicant cannot obtain permission from EWEB for the proposed accessway
I
connections, the applicant shall revise the Plan Set such that no connection to the EWEB property IS
shown I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #34 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
,
deed restnctlon stating to the satisfaction of the City f.ttorney and the Development Services Director that
any maintenance of the accessways shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant or successor owners
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #35 Pnor to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
I
provide an executed operation and maintenance agreement for the proposed accessways that meets the
I
approval of the City Attorney, the Development Services Dlfector and the Public Works Director
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #36 Pnor to the approval of the Final Master Plan, If EWEB reqUires
bike way Improvements, the applicant shall descnbe the extent of those Improvements and submit
I
construction plans With the SubdiVISion Tentative plan reqUired for the Implementation of Phase 1 The
construction shall be complete and approved by thelappropnate agency prior to the occupancy of the
home Improvement center proposed as part of Phase 2
I
SDC SECTION 4 3-105 - SANITARY SEWERS
I
Applicant's Response "Sheet 10 1, Sanitary Sewer Plan and Attachment 7, Sanitary Plan show
that a comprehensIve sanitary sewer system wIll be Installed and available to meet the needs of
planned development consIstent WIth SDC SectIon 43-105(A) DetaIled specIfIcatIons and
I
constructIon of the sanitary sewer system WIll be submItted as part of tentatIve subdIVISIon and
sIte plan reVIew submIttals, pending approval o~ thIS Master Plan, and meet the reqUIrements of
SDC SectIOn 4 3-105(A)-(C) and the CIty'S Engineering DesIgn Manual
I
Staff ResDonse/Ftndtna SDC Section 4 3-105 A reqUIres that sanitary sewers shall be Installed to
I
serve each new development and to connect developments to eXisting mains Additionally, installation of
I
sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities
I
SDC Section 4 3-105 B reqUires that the City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and
proposed systems pnor to development approval I
The City'S Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual states In Section 2 02 8 that sewers
I
shall be located In the right-of-way at street centerhne or Within 5 feet of the street centerline Sewers In
I
easements shall only be allowed after all reasonable attempts to place the mains In the rights-of-way
have been exhausted I
The applicant has shown proposed extension of public wastewater lines throughout the developable area
I
as shown on Plan Sheet 10 1 Sizes of the proposed sewer lines are not indicated The applicant has
shown fiow line elevations for some of the proposed sewers In the phases EXisting grades In the area of
some of the sewer extensions are on the order of Yo foot higher than proposed fiow lines
44
A large 42 Inch public trunk sewer line bisects the subJect property, flowing from east to west as shown on
Plan Sheet 10 1 Additionally, a 10 Inch sewer pipe IS located on-site on the westerly property boundary,
flowing north to south as shown on Plan Sheet 10 1 The applicant has proposed connection to the
eXisting public system In 3 separate locations Two connections are proposed along the eXisting 42 Inch
trunk sewer, while one connection IS located on 31St Street Plan Sheet 10 shows the proposed public
connection pOints
The City'S Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual states In Section 2 02 2 that a sewer
study shall be completed and submitted to the City when a public sanitary system IS extended to serve a
development generating a flow above 5000 gallons per day or exceeding ten percent of the total flow In
the downstream system A sewer study has not been submitted with the Master Plan application
The eXisting 10 Inch public pipe on the westerly portion of the property IS shown to be 12 Inches In
diameter on plan sheet 10 1 This line IS shown to be located underneath the enhanced drainage swale
This location does not provide for adequate maintenance by City staff and allows an Increased chance of
Infiltratlon/lnflow Into the sewer system
There IS an eXisting bUilding sited on the property, located as shown on Plan Sheet 3 The applicant IS
proposing to remove the bUilding and associated Improvements It IS not clear If the eXisting bUilding IS
connected to the public sewer system, or If It IS served by a septic system It IS possible the bUilding IS
not connected to either septic or public sewer service
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #37 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a
sanitary sewer study In accordance with Section 2 02 2 of the City's Englneenng DesIgn Standards and
Procedures Manual
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #38 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall show on
the Plan Set the eXisting 10 Inch publiC sewer pipe on the westerly property line In a location outside of
the enhanced drainage swale The associated construction for either moving the swale or relocating the
eXisting sewer pipe shall be the responsibility of the applicant and shall occur dUring the Phase 1
Improvements Any necessary easements associated With said construclion shall be shown on the
SubdiVISion Tentative Plan, reqUired to Implement Phase 1
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #39. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall furnish
information to the City for reView, Indicating how the eXisting bUilding located on the subject property
receives sanitary sewer service If the bUilding IS served by a septic tank and drain field, the applicant or
successor owners shall be responsible to remove and decommiSSion the tank and drain field In
accordance With applicable state reqUirements The eXisting bUilding shall be removed prior to the
recording of the SubdiVISion Plat reqUired to Initiate Phase 1
SDC SECTION 4 3-110 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Applicant's Response "As noted In Attachment 6, Stormwater Master Plan (SMP), runoff WIll be
treated consIstent WIth the prOVISIons In SDC SectIon 4 3-110 and other artIcles In the Code, the
CIty'S Englneenng DeSIgn Standards Manual SpecIfically, the Master Plan's SMP uses Best
Management PractIces (as reqUIred In the above-referenced manuals) Integrated WIth the sIte
desIgn to treat stormwater qualIty at the source A combinatIon of vegetatIve swales and other
bIOlogIcal means will be used to treat runoff from all ImpervIous surfaces WIthin the development
sIte All surface runoff WIll be treated prior to dIscharge off-SIte consIstent WIth CIty reqUIrements,
and clean roof runoff WIll be handled separately from on-sIte treatment and detentIOn of
stormwaterfrom ImpervIous surfaces As required In SDC SectIon 4 3-110(C), the SMP also
Includes treatment and conveyance to accommodate potentIal runoff from upstream drainage
areas as well as on-SIte, and IS appropriately SIzed to detain, treat, and convey runoff consIstent
WIth SDC SectIon 4 3-110(C)."
45
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma SDC Section 4 3-110 B reqUires that the Approval Authority shall grant
,
development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems
,
provIsions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the Englneenng
Design Standards and 'Procedures Manual I
SDC Section 4 3-110 C states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential runoff
,
from ItS entlfe upstream drainage area, whether Inside or outSide of the development The applicant has
turned In a Stormwater Management Plan for the subJect site In that plan, the applicant has prOVided
calculations from the model EPASWMM to account for off-site drainage
I
SDC Section 4 3-110 D reqUIres that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved
,
stormwater management system With sufficient capacity to accept the discharge
I
SDC Section 4 3-110 E reqUires new developments Ito employ drainage management practices, which
minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff Into receiving streams, and which promote water
,
quality To comply With SDC Sections 4 3-110 D and E, stormwater runoff from the site Will be directed
,
Into a series of water quality swales, pipes, water quality ponds and ultimately a large relocated drainage
,
swale (the former Pierce channel) Two connection pOints have been proposed to the eXisting public
system The first connection Will be at the southwest corner of the site at the eXisting 60 Inch stormwater
,
pipe In Marcola Road The second connection pOint Will be at the north central portion of the Site, at the
,
eXisting 18 Inch culvert which crosses the EWEB bike path
I
The eXisting public stormwater system, to which the applicant proposes connection, has limited capacity
,
Therefore, the apphcant has proposed 3 detention areas to limit the discharge rates to the public system
,
Two of these systems are ponds, located as shown on Plan Sheet 9 The remaining system IS a
proposed concrete weir With a notch to restrict flow, located on the relocated Pierce channel at Martin
Drive I
The applicant has proposed extension of stormwater systems as shown on plan sheet 9 Flow line
,
elevations have been given for some of the proposed pipes In some areas where flow line elevations
,
have been given, the surrounding eXisting grades indicate the systems could not be bUilt as proposed
Without large volumes of fill I
The applicant has submitted a conceptual Grav,ty utility and Grading Plan as supplemental information
,
on November 27,2007 The applicant has not indicated the proposed sizes of the public drainage pipes
,
on the plan set or In the drainage study The applicant has submitted several technical addendums to the
,
tentative drainage study to supplement the Original study
I
The storm drainage study indicates the maximum hydraulic grade line associated With the relocated
channel In the 25-year event Will be 463 38 feet Th'e applicant has proposed the lowest street elevation
,
be 1 foot higher, at 464 38 feet to meet reqUirements In the City'S Englneenng DeSIgn Standards and
,
Procedures Manual Losses due to friction, pipe length, and bends at manholes have not Included In the
elevation of the street grade I
The applicant has provided calculations and printouts from modeling results In the drainage study for the
,
area near Loch Drive The area near Loch Lane currently experiences flooding In larger storm events
,
The applicant has shown, through calculations In the drainage study, that development of the subJect
,
property Will not exacerbate the eXisting problem In fact, the hydraulic grade line In the VICInity of Loch
,
Drive Will be lowered by 1 13 feet dUring the 25-year storm event, and the elevation of the water surface
,
Will be slightly below that of the lowest curb elevation
I
The applicant has proVided printouts from the hydraulic model EPA SWMM shOWing the maximum
,
volume reqUired for the four proposed detenlion areas A drawdown graph has been proVided for the
,
concrete weir system on the relocated ditch, shOWing the ditch draws down In less than 24 hours /
Section 4 12 B 3 of the City'S Englneenng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual requires that
46
detenlion faCilities drawdown In less than 48 hours for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event The applicant has
not provided drawdown information for the two proposed detention ponds
The applicant has proposed several water quality swales on the plan be public swales One swale,
located dlfectly adJacent to Marcola Road, will serve parcels 5 and 6 and IS proposed to be located In a
public easement It IS not apparent If thiS swale will drain water from the public right-of-way It may be
appropriate to locate thiS swale In a private drainage easement
Many of the proposed water quality swales are proposed as roadSide swales and located directly
adjacent to a proposed street These swales have not been reflected In street cross sections as shown
on Plan Sheet 11
The proposed relocated Pierce channel will be constructed as part of the Phase 1 public Improvements
Ultimately upon subdiVISion of the property, the channel will be located on several different parcels The
City of Springfield Will provide routine "functional" maintenance for the channel as It Will collect runoff from
public rlghts-of-ways The City does not provide aesthetic maintenance for waterways located on private
property As part of the Public Improvement Plan process for the Phase 1 Improvements, the applicant
shall enter Into a maintenance agreement With the City for the relocated channel, where specific
maintenance responsibilities of the City and applicant Will be clarified
Wlllamalane Park and Recreation submitted the follOWing comments "Several sheets In the Plan Set
should be modifIed so that the stormwater management factl1tles on the proposed Oak Pralne Park are
depicted consIstently on all sheets Plan Sheet 9 shows a larger detentIon baSin than the other sheets
and It shows a water quality treatment area that IS not shown on the other sheets
On page 15 of the applIcant's narratIVe, In response to neighborhood comments regarding flooding, the
applicant states that "post-development stormwater runoff volumes to properties to the north Will not
exceed the eXIsting pre-development volumes 'As owners of the property to the north (PIerce Park
property) that has expenenced flooding by storm water flOWing from the subject SIte, we request
that the Master Plan or the Master Plan condItIons of approval Include language as needed to
ensure that the Marcola Meadows storm water management system WIll prevent future flooding of
the PIerce Park property by runoff from Marcola Meadows '"
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #40 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a
reVised drainage study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, which Incorporates all the supplied
supplemental information for the tentative drainage study In one final document
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #41 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall revise the
drainage study recommendation that the minimum street grade on the site be 464 38 feet The applicant
shall recommend that minimum street grade on the site be 464 38 feet plus all applicable hydraulic losses
associated With pipe length, friction, bends, etc
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #42 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall supply
drawdown results In the drainage study for the two proposed detention ponds, verifying they meet the
minimum reqUired drawdown time of 48 hours for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, as speCified In Section
4 12 B 3 of the City'S Engineering DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #43 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit
additional information regarding the proposed swale along Marcola Road SpeCifically, the applicant shall
indicate why thiS swale IS proposed to be public and located In a public easement
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #44 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a
reVised street cross section detail which shows area for a proposed roadSide water quality swale, as shown
In plan view on Plan Sheet 9 '
47
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #45 Prior to the recording of the SubdiVISion Plat, and pnor to City
,
Council acceptance of the Phase 1 Public Improvement Plan reView, the applicant shall enter Into a
maintenance agreement With the City to the salisfactlon of the City Attorney and the City Engineer for the
,
re-Iocated storm channel and assocIated Phase 1 water quality features
I
SDC SECTION 4 3.115 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
I
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma Under Federal regulation, of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species
Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield has
,
obtained a MUniCipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit A provIsion of this permit reqUires the
City demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution In urban stormwater to the MaXimum Extent Practicable
(MEP) I
Federal and Oregon Department of Envlfonmental Quality (ODEQ) rules reqUire the City'S MS4 plan
,
address SIX "MInimum Control Measures" MInimum Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stormwater
,
Management for New Development and Redevelopment," applies to the proposed development
I
MInimum Control Meai?ure 5 reqUIres the City of Sp\,ngfield to develop, Implement and enforce a program
to ensure the reduction of pollutants In stormwater runoff to the MEP The City must also develop and
Implement strategies that Include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management
Practices (BMPs) appropnated for the community r
MInimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield use an ordinance or other regulatory
,
mechanism to address post construction runoff from new and re-development proJects to the extent
allowable under State law Regulatory mechanlsmsl used by the City Include the Springfield Development
,
Code (SDC), the City'S Englneenng DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and the future
Stormwater FaCIlities Master Plan (SFMP) I
As reqUIred In Section 4 3-110 E of the SDC, "a development shall be required to employ drainage
,
management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent With Metro Plan policies
,
and the Englneenng DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual"
I
Section 3 02 of the City'S EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim deSign
standards for stormwater quality, water quality faCIlities deSigned pursuant to the policies and procedures
,
of either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS)
I
Section 3 03 3 B of the City'S EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment
,
proJects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that In combination are deSigned to
,
achieve at least a 70 percent reduction In the total suspended solids In the runoff generated by that
,
development Section 3 03 4 E of the manual reqUIres a minimum of 50 percent of the non-bUilding
,
rooftop Impervious area on a site shall be treated for stonmwater quality Improvement uSing vegetative
methods I
SDC Section 5 13 125 C states the proposed on-site and off-Site Improvements, both public and pnvate,
,
should be suffiCient to accommodate the proposed phased development The applicant has shown the
,
locations of the public water quality faCIlities on plan sheet 9 Not shown however, are conceptual
locations of private water quality faCIlities reqUired to meet Section 3 03 4 E of the City's EDSPM
I
To meet the reqUirements of the City'S MS4 permit, the Spnngfield Development Code, and the City'S
,
EDSPM, the applicant has shown conceptual locations on the master plan for water quality
,
Improvements, Including two detention ponds, several proposed swales and a large relocated drainage
,
ditch Several of the Improvements are proposed to be constructed In Phase 1 as shown on Plan Sheet
9
48
The applicant has not Indicated a proposal for the landscaping plan as It pertains to the relocated
drainage ditch on the site, but has Included a planting plan proposal In the submitted JOint permit
application submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers and the DIvIsion of State Lands
The vegetation proposed for use In the swales will serve as the pnmary pollutant removal mechanism for
the stormwater runoff, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants through the processes of
sedimentation and filtration Satisfactory pollutant removal Will occur only when the vegetation has been
fully established
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #46 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall designate
on the Plan Set specific areas set aSide for water quality management on each proposed parcel to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer Specifically, the applicant shall show that adequate space IS available on
each parcel to meet the City'S requirement of 50% vegetative treatment of non-bUildable rooftop area, as
reqUired by the Englneenng DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #47 Concurrently With the submittal of the SubdiVISion Tentalive Plan
reqUired to Initiate Phase 1, the applicant shall submit a detailed planting plan In compliance With the
City's stormwater quality standards
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #48 Dunng construction of the Phase 1 Improvements, the applicant
shall, at the If expense, Install the reqUired plantlngs In the relocated drainage ditch, as reqUIred and
approved In the JOint Permit Application by the Army Corps of Engineers and DIVISion of State Lands
SDC SECTION 43-120 TO SECTION 4 3.140 - UTILITIES
Applicant's Response "LocatIons for electrical power, water and other utilItIes m addItIon to
those referenced above, are IdentIfIed on Sheet 3, SIte Assessment of Exlstmg CondItIons and
Sheet 10 1, Sanitary Sewer Plan and Sheet 10 2 Power and Water Plan UtIlity Imes are proposed
,to be placed underground consIstent WIth SDC SectIon 4 3-125 Sheet 10 2, Power and Water Plan
Illustrates the locatIon of publIC water Imes wlthm public utIlIty easement locatIOns consIstent
WIth SDC 4 3-130(A) and SectIon 4 3-140(A) The relocated PIerce DItch wlthm the development
sIte proposed to have storm water outfalls, and therefore thIS watercourse and rlpanan area IS
proposed to be a part of the CIty Storm water Management System As such, there IS a need to
prOVIde a mamtenance easement pursuant to SDC SectIon 4 3-140(B) In a meetmg WIth CIty staff
on September 19, 2007, staff indIcated that they WIll prOVIde directIon m thIS regard through the
Master Plan DRC process
UTILITIES. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY
WATER SERVICE
Staff ResDonse/Fmdma SDC Section 4 3-130 A reqUires each development area to be proVided With a
water system haVing suffiCiently Sized maJns and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the
development and suffiCient access for maintenance The Spnngfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the
deSign of the water system Within Spnngfield City limits and currently prOVides water service to the site
SIZing and localion of faCilities shall meet SUB's needs and the long range needs of the City SUB stated
that the site can be served With water The current plan depicts extension of water lines throughout the
site to service the proposed development A large 24 Inch diameter line Will be extended In Martin Blvd,
while a 12 Inch water line Will be placed In Belle Blvd The 12 Inch line In Belle Blvd Will also parallel the
City's eXisting 42 Inch storm sewer line
SDC Section 4 3-140 A requires applicants proposing developments make arrangements With the City
and each utility prOVider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development
or land beyond the development area The minimum Width for public utility easements adJacent to street
49
rights of ways shall be 7 feet The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 7 feet
,
The Public Works Director may require a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance
The applicant has proposed plaCing the new 12 InChl water line that parallels the City'S eXisting 42 Inch
,
sanitary sewer In a 15 foot public utility easement, adjacent to the eXisting 20 foot public sanitary sewer
,
easement The 42 Inch sewer line IS approximately ,16 feet deep to flow line of the pipe The combined
35 feet of publiC easement may not be sufficient to allow for adequate maintenance and/or replacement of
,
the 42 Inch sewer pipe, depending upon the depth and location of the new 12 Inch water line The
applicant has shown the water line to be located on the southerly side of the proposed 15 foot public
utility easement I
SDC Section 4 3-140 B reqUires that where the Public Works Dlfector has determined that a watercourse
or nparlan area will be part of the City'S Stormwater Management System, a maintenance easement shall
,
be reqUired In order to maintain the functionality of these areas For watercourses, the easement shall be
,
measured from either the top of bank, ordinary high water mark or the delineated setback line The
easement shall be a minimum of 10 feet Wide where: no equipment IS reqUired for access or maintenance
The easement shall be extended to a maximum of 25 feet Wide to allow City maintenance vehicles to set
up and perfonm the reqUired maintenance I
The applicant has submitted a tentative land diVISion and street plan, which shows proposed easements
,
assOCiated With the master plan Among other easements, a large blanket public drainage easement has
,
been proposed over the entire greenway area (relocated Pierce channel), thereby satisfying Section SDC
4~~B I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #49 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall provide
,
additional detail, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shOWing that Installation of the 12 Inch water line
paralleling the eXisting 42 Inch sanitary sewer line Will not Impede maintenance access or replacement of
the eXisting 42 Inch sanitary sewer line
ELECTRICAL SERVICE
SUB currently provides water and electncal service to the site SIZing and location of faCIlities shall meet
the needs of SUB and the long range needs of the City SDC Section 4 3-120 states "Whenever
possIble, all utilIty lines shall be placed underground:" SUB states that the site can be served by
electriCity The applicant shall coordinate all reqUired easements With SUB
I
SDC SECTION 47-100 - SPECIAL USE STANDARDS
I
Applicant's Response "Future surface parkmg lots m MUC areas will mclude penmeter
landscapmg and shade trees per SDC SectIon 3 2-315 and SectIon 4 4-105F At the tIme offuture
,
subdIVISIon and! or sIte reVIew applicatIon the Vegetatlon/ RevegetatIon Plan WIll Illustrate future
landscape and tree plantmgs wlthm buffer areasladjacent to Marco/a Road, 28th/31st Street,
wlthm parkmg areas and between parkmg areas abuttmg publIC streets The
,
VegetatIon/RevegetatIon Plan shall meet the requirements of SDC SectIon 4 7-180A 2 a"
I
Staff Response/Fmdmg SDC Section 4 7-180 lists speCial use standards applicable to the MUC Dlstnct
and states I
"A SpecIfic development standards for the MUC Dlstnct shall be the same as those specified In
,
Section 3 2-310 as an "S" use and listed In appl1cable SubsectIons of SectIon 4 7-100, and the
follOWing I
EXCEfTlONS
1 Dnve-through uses may conflIct With safe and convement movement of pedestnans and bIcycles
Within MUC Dlstncts A dnve-through use, for the purposes of thIS SectIon, IS defined as a bUSiness
,
actlvlIy involVing bUYing or selling goods or prOViSIon of servIces wherever one of the parties conducts
50
the actIVIty from wllhln a motor vehicle Facllll1es usually assocIated WIth a dnve-through usually
Involve queuing lines, service Windows, servIce Islands, and servIce bays for vehicular use Dnve-
through uses are therefore not permItted In MUC Dlstncts unless the use IS inCidental to a pnmary SIte
use, and when desIgned In conformance WIth the follOWing standards
a The dnve-through use shall be limited to sefV1ce Windows which are part of a pnmary use structure,
and no more than two queuing lanes
b Dnve-up facilitIes shall be designed so that cIrculatIOn and dnve-up Windows are not adJacent to
Sidewalks or between bUildings and the street, to the maximum extent practIcable
2 Parking Lots and Parking Structures, Public and Pnvate
a In MUC Dlstncts, surface parking lots abutting publIC streets shall Include penmeter landscaping
and shade trees as speCIfied In SectIons 3 2-315 and 4 4-100
b Parking structures located WIthin 20 feet of pedestnan facilities, including, but not limIted to public
or pnvate streets, pedestnan accessways, green ways, transIt stations, shelters, or plazas, shall
provide a pedestnan-scale enVironment on the far;ade faCing the pedestnan facilIty One or more of
the follOWing techniques may be used
ProvIde retail or offIce uses on the ground floor of the parking structure faCing the pedestnan
facilIty,
/I Provide architectural features that enhance the ground floor of a parking structure adJacent to the
pedestnan facIlity, for example, bUilding artIculatIon, awnings, canopIes, bUilding ornamentatIon and
art, and/or
11/ Provide pedestnan amenitIes In the transItIon area between the parking structure and pedestnan
faCility, including landscaping, trellIses, seating areas, kiosks, water features WIth a sIlting area,
plazas, outdoor eating areas, and dnnklng fountains
c Residential Uses
I In areas deSIgnated for mixed-use In adopted refinement plans, speCIfic area plans, and specific
development plans, multIple family development are reqUired to meet development standards as
speCIfied In the local refinement plan MDR and HDR Dlstnct standards speCIfied In Section 3 2-200
shall be compiled WIth where local refinement plans do not specify development standards, or In
areas where no local refinement plan has been prepared All multIple famIly developments shall meet
the standards specified In Section 32-240
/I Cluster SUbdIVISIons Development standards specified In SectIon 3 2-230 apply to cluster
subdIvIsions In the MUC Dlstnct
d Small scale repair and maintenance servIces In MUC Dlstncts these sefV1ces shall take place
entIrely Indoors, and bUIldings shall be constructed and utilized to ensure that nOIse or odor do not
dIsturb the normal operatIon and tranqUIlity of nelghbonng resIdential and bUSiness area"
The applicant shall prepare a deed restnctlon that guarantees compliance With these additional MUC District
development standards
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #50 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a
deed restnctlon to the satlsfactJon of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that reqUires
the applicant and successor owners to comply With the additional MUC Dlstnct development standards
speCified In SDC Section 4 7-180
51
CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned above, criterion 5 13-125C has been met
rCRITERION - 513-125D 1 "The request shall pJvlde adequate gUIdance for the desIgn and
coordinatIOn of future phases," I
Applicant's Response "Plan Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan shows the conceptual phasmg plan for the
,
VIllages at Marcola Meadows Please see comments under SDC Section 5 13-120(L) above for
more mformatIon )" The apphcanl's reference states "Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan shows the order of
,
development for Marcola Meadows Please revIew the sIdebar on Sheet 7 for addItIonal
,
mformatlon on phasmg that has not already been presented m thIS document"
I
The applicant also states "Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan ~hows the development phasmg plan Phase 1 wIll
mcorporate the development of Martm Drive, Belle Boulevard, the mternal drive network that wIll
,
connect to the home Improvement store and the Open Space! Common Area that separates the
,
commercIal and reSIdentIal parts of the deve/oP"1ent Phase 2 mcludes the development of the
home Improvement store Phase 3 mcludes the development of 87 smgle-famlly resIdences
,
located adjacent to Belle Boulevard, north of Martm Dnve east towards 31st Street Phase 4
I
mcludes the remammg development of reSIdentIal and commercIal areas m conformance WIth the
mternal tnp dIstributIon table wlthm the Master Plan TraffIc Impact AnalYSIS (Attachment 3 1) As
such thIS condItIon IS satIsfied" I
Finally, under deSignation of responsibility for proViding Infrastructure and services, the applicant states
I
"As condItIoned m the prevIously approved Metro Plan amendments the applicant IS reqUIred to
,
provIde on-sIte and off-SIte mfrastructure Improv,ements necessary to serve future development.
The Spnngfleld Development Code master plan 'iPurpose Statement" SDC SectIOn 5 13-105(D)
stIpulates that, 'Subject to prior approval of a Master Plan, a separate subdIVISIon or sIte plan
,
applicatIon shall be approved for each phase The Master Plan shall be the baSIS for the
,
evaluatIOn of all phases of development on any Issues that It addresses Phases may be
combmed for consIderatIOn' Therefore, the detaIls necessary to Implement the Master Plan and
,
Its condItions of approval shall be addressed through subsequent applicatIons subject to the
,
CIty'S regular Type II land use revIew and approval process ThIS Master Plan calls for phased
,
subdIVISIon development It mvokes the requirements for subdIVISIon approval, SDC Section 5 12-
120, whIch mclude I
SDC SectIon 5 12-120(E) 'A Future Development Plan Where phasmg or lots/parcels are
,
proposed, the TentatIve Plan shall mclude a Future Development Plan that
,
5 DISCUSSes the tlmmg and fmanclal prOVIsIons related to phasmg ,
SDC Section 5 12-120(F) 'AddItIOnal mformatlonland/or applIcatIons required at the tIme of
TentatIVe Plan applicatIon submittal shall mclude the followmg Items, where applIcable
,
11 All publIC Improvements proposed to be mstalled and to mclude the approxImate tIme
of mstallatlon, and method of fmancmg I
13 Proposed deed restnctlOns and a draft of a homeowner's ASSOCIatIOn Agreement,
where appropriate I
14 If the land dIVISIon IS phased, a Future Delljelopment Plan for the remamder of the
property shall be provIded, mcludmg tlmmg and fmanclal proVIsIOns'
,
The descnptlon of phasmg and sequence of development mcluded m thIS Master Plan
,
provIdes adequate gUIdance for the deSIgn and coordmatlon of future phases of development
,
Refer to the "Sheet 7" phasmg plan and to comments addressmg the criterion SDC SectIon 5 13-
,
120(L) The Master Plan WIll be recorded agamst the property, thereby obllgatmg current and
,
future owners to create property owners assocIatIons WIth bylaws requiring adherence to the
,
Master Plan and adherence to any development and Improvement fmancmg agreements
,
necessary to msure the continUIty and mtegnty of the plan The majority of SIgnifIcant
,
mfrastructure necessary to serve development WIll be provIded by the current owner as a
,
condItIon of subdIVISIon Phase 1 final plat approval CondItIons of approval for subsequent
,
subdiVISIon phases WIll msure that mfrastructures and servIces are prOVIded m a timely manner
,
When the first subdIVISIon TentatIve Plan IS proposed, applIcatIon materials WIll mclude drafts of
52
property owners AssocIatIOn Agreements As condItIOns of subdIvIsIon fmal plat approval,
property owners assocIatIons wIll be created, one for commercIally zoned areas and another for
resIdentIally zoned areas Both WIll be supported wIth bylaws and CC&Rs requmng adherence to
the Master Plan, ItS DesIgn GUldelmes and any fmanclal oblIgatIOns for mamtenance of common
areas Mutual and separate access rights and mamtenance responsIbilitIes will be defmed, as WIll
mechanisms for coordmatlOn between the two
assocIatIons"
Staff Response
SDC 5 13-105 defines and explains the purpose of a Master Plan as follows
"A A Master Plan IS a comprehensIve plan that allows phaSing of a specific development area over several
years for public, commercIal, Industnal or reSidential development A Master Plan, In thiS context, IS
speCific to thIS Code and IS not conSIdered to be a refinement plan or any other SimIlar subset of the
Metro Plan By addreSSing public service Impacts and development reqUirements at the tIme of
approval of Master Plan, these Impacts and reqUirements need not be readdressed at subsequent
phases and the developer may rely on the Master Plan approval In Implementing the development
B The purpose of a Master Plan IS to
1 ProVide preliminary approval for the entire development area In relatIon to land uses, a range of
minImum to maxImum potential Intensllles and densItIes, arrangement of uses, and the locatIon of public
facllll1es and transportation systems when a development area IS proposed to be developed In phases,
2 Assure that indiVIdual ohases of a develooment WIll be coordinated wIth each other:
3 ProVIde the applicant an assurance of the CIty's expectation for the overall development as a basIs for
detailed planning and Investment by the developer" [emphaSIS addedl
SDC Section 5 13-120 J states that the Director may reqUire additional Information necessary to evaluate
the proposed development The applicant has submitted a "Gravity Utility and Grading Plan" plan sheet as
supplemental information on November 27, 2007 The plan shows how the s,te can be graded to support
gravity sanitary and stormwater systems The plan IS conceptual, and represents how the site Will graded
upon full bUild-out of the entire site It does not proVide gUidance for grading on a phaSing plan level (I e
- as the property develops over time), nor does the plan designate responsibility or timing of when the fill
Will occur The applicant has proposed Installing a 2 to 3 foot landscaped retaining wall along the
northern and western property line of Parcel 10 as shown on the "Gravity Utility and Grading Plan
SDC Section 5 13-120 L reqUires that an overall schedule or deSCription of phaSing be submitted to the City
for review If phaSing alternatives are contemplated, these alternatives shall be descnbed SDC Section
513-125 D requires that the master plan request shall prOVide adequate gUidance for the deSign and
coordination of future phases
SDC Section 5 13-120 M reqUires that where off-Site or other Infrastructure Improvements are required, the
applicant shall specify the timing and method of secunng the Improvement, including bond, letter of credit,
JOint depOSit or other security satisfactory for smd Improvement construction
SDC Section 513-125 C requires that proposed on-site and off-Site Improvements, both public and pnvate,
shall be suffiCient to accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacity reqUirements of the
public faCIlities plans, and that provIsions are made to assure construction of off-Site Improvements In
conJunction With a schedule of the phaSing
SDC Section 5 13-125 B requires that the master plan request shall confonm to applicable Spnngfield
Development Code requirements
53
The applicant's Phasmg Plan submitted on September 28, 2007 depicts how the site IS proposed to be
developed over the life of the Master Plan I
Phase 1 - Construct Martm Dnve, Belle Boulevard and other "backbone' mfrastructure to support Phase
2 commercial development and future commercial development
I
Phase 2 - Construct a 171,000 square-foot home Improvement center
I
Phase 3 - Construct 87 smgle-famlly homes In the northeast portion of the MDR site
I
Phase 4 - Construct the remammg proposed commercial and residential development
I
Phases 1, 2 and 3 are anticipated to be completed In 2008, the multiple elements of Phase 4 are
expected to be completed between 2008 and 2015 I Only Phase 1 IS proposed to be constructed by the
applicant Phases 2, 3 and 4 are proposed to be constructed by successor owners Phase 4 development
IS descnbed as occurring on the remammg parcels '(as market condItions present opportunitIes" WIth
supportmg mfrastructure provided "by owner of applIcable parcels" The TIA concludes that
construction of at least 87 single-family residential umts In conJunction With the home Improvement center
would address the mternal tnp capture assumptlonslused In the Metro Plan diagram amendment Goal 12
analYSIS for development Phases 2 and 3 For Phases 2-4, the TIA presents analYSIS that shows
,
amounts and types of reSidential development that would be needed 10 conjunction With the various
,
"commercial Villages" to address thiS condition However, nothing 10 the applicant's phasmg proposal
,
ensures that thiS pattern of linked resldentlal/commerclal development would occur Staff expressed to
the applicant that the proposed Phasmg Plan did not "provIde adequate gUIdance for the desIgn and
coordinatIon of future phases" because I
. there was no guarantee that the MDR portion of the site would ever be constructed,
,
. that dlvldmg the Site, especially the MDR portion, IS problematic because there IS no gUidance for the
,
design and coordination of future phases for mfrastructure Improvements (gradmg, and the logical
extension of streets and utilities), and I
. that there was no deSignation of responsibility and no method of financial security discussed or
,
submitted that would guarantee proposed development beyond Phase 3
I
On November 13, 2007 staff met With the applicant The applicant submitted the phaSing scenano 10
,
Attachment 6 which divides the site IOta "sub-phases" based on the TIA However, staff stili had the
,
same concerns cited above Staff met again With Ithe applicant on November 21, 2007 The applicant
submitted the followmg mformatlon on November 21' 2007
"ApplIcant TestImony Regardmg Development Ifhasmg Plan
Zonmg CondItIon of Approval 10 reqUIres a certam percentage of the resIdentIal portIon of the sIte
to be developed WIth a sImIlar percentage of the' commercIal The mtent of thIS CondItIOn IS to
,
address the "mternal trip' Issue and to ensure that the proposed land uses m Table 4C do not
exceed the mdlVidual caps for these uses I
In response to staff concerns recently expressed, the applicant offers the followmg
I
1 It IS not necessary for the percentage formula to be Imposed m order to assure the
,
development of the resIdentIal portIon of the master plan and to assure that tnp numbers for
,
the commercIal portIon of the development do not exceed those shown m Table 4C of the T1A
I
o By Its zOning, a portIOn of the master plan area IS commItted to commercIal development The
,
developer IS further legally commItted by the master plan agreement to develop the reSIdentIal
portIon ThIS agreement WIll be recorded I
o Durmg the first phase of the development, the applIcant will make an addItIonal legal
,
commItment and vanous substantIal fmanclal commItments to full development The
,
condItIons of the zonmg map amendment mclude CondItIon 3 whIch requires that the eXlstmg
,
dramage dItch be relocated and be converted to a major water feature as an mtegral part of
54
the proposed development area, all as part of Phase One of the development Further fmanclal
commlUnent IS represented by the reqUIrement CondItIOn 9 that mItIgatIon measures
satIsfactory to ODOT be made to the Mohawk Boulevard/Eugene-Sprmgfleld mtersectlon The
condItIon specIfIcally requires thIs mItIgatIon be accomplIshed prior to temporary occupancy
of any use m Phase One development ThIs IS also the case wIth the development of the entire
length of the collector street, Martm Dnve, from Marcola Road to V Street as part of Phase
One
2 The purpose of CondItIon 10 does not require the percentage formula at each phase of the
development and should not be mterpreted m that manner
o The findmgs reflect that what IS here deSIgnated as the percentage formula IS dIscussed m
context of the need to account for "mternal tnps" (see Staff Report, March 27, 2007, page 6-
53) The dISCUSSIon under the headmg "Issues, subheadmg Future Traffic and AnalysIs
ReqUIrements", concludes the statement
'One way to address the 'mternal trIp' Issue IS to condItIon the Master Plan phasmg to reqUIre
a certam percentage of the resIdentIal portion of the sIte to be developed wIth a sImIlar
percentage of the commercIal'
The percentage formula IS offered as only one pOSSIble way to control the number of gross tripS
generated by development so that precedmg commercIal development does not consume a
dIsproportionate portIon of the road capacIty prior to constructIon of the resIdentIal development
o WhIle the stated purpose of CondItIOn 10 IS to address the 'mternal trip' Issue, It references
Table 4C of the T1A
'b) Ensure that, for each type of land use, the amounts proposed do not exceed those shown
m Table 4C of the TIA '
ThIs states "for each type of land use" (emphasIs added) not for each phase
3 AddItIOnally, the applicant notes that thIs IS the fIrst applIcatIon of thIs master plan concept
mvolvmg mIxed commercIal and resIdentIal use m Spnngfleld The applIcant should be
afforded some deference to the practIcalItIes of achlevmg thIs large scale development,
partIcularly gIVen the heavy Investment reqUIred up front for publIc Improvements There must
be some recognitIon of the practIcalitIes of the marketplace and the vIcIssItudes of the
economy
4 GIven the above, the applIcant proposed the followmg
o Parcel 1 , sIte of the proposed home Improvement center, may be developed as the first phase
of the Master Plan
o Followmg thIs first phase of development, each subsequent commercIal development shall
permItted upon completIon of a resIdentIal phase or phases that offset the projected traffIc
generatIon of the proposed commercIal development ResIdentIal traffic generatIon offsets m
excess of that required for currently approved reSIdentIal development Will accrue wIth offsets
of subsequent reSIdentIal phases and be applIed to future proposed commercIal phases of the
Master Plan
o When development of a commercIal phase depends on pnor completIon of a reSIdentIal
phase, the approval and recordmg of saId reSIdentIal phase Fmal Plat fulfIls the requirement
of completIon
o The gradmg, dramage and publIc Improvements of the resIdentIal areas shall be desIgned so
that each reSIdentIal phase may be developed wIthout dependmg on pnor development of an
adjacent reSIdentIal phase, the reSIdentIal phases may be developed m any sequence
o Each commercIal phase of the Master Plan shall have a maxImum area of development
expressed m gross floor area The aggregate of these floor area maxImums shall equal the
commercIal floor area maxImum for the entire Master Planned development based on the
approved TIA
o The Fmal Master Plan document shall mclude a table Identlfymg each reSIdentIal and non.
resIdentIal phase of the Master Plan The table will mclude mformatlOn regardmg the projected
55
traffIc generatIon of each phase, and the number of dwellmg Units or non-resIdential gross
floor area assocIated wIth saId traffIc prOjeCbOnS
,
o Followmg occupancy of the fIrst approved bUlldmg m each commercIal phase of the Master
,
Plan, and approval of a Fmal Plat for each reSIdentIal phase of the Master Plan, the applIcant
shall submIt to the CIty an addendum to thls[table calculatmg the current balance of non-
reSIdentIal development traffIc projectIons and reSIdentIal traffIc generatIOn offsets A copy of
each addendum wIll be added to the CIty'S plannmg flies assocIated wIth the approval of the
,
Master Plan A copy of the updated table shall also be recorded as an addendum to the
recorded copy of the Master Plan I
Staff disagrees With the applicant's Interpretation of ~ondltlon 10 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance
6196 states "Submittal of a Master Plan applicatIon that Incorporates a "Development PhaSing Plan" shall
be reqUired In order to comply WIth SDC SectIon [5 13-120(12)] The Intent of thiS condItIOn IS to a) Address
,
the "lntemal tnp" Issue by requlnng a certain percentage of the reSIdentIal portion of the sIte to be developed
WIth a SImIlar percentage of the commercIal portIon "\he specific percentages Will be made part of the
approved Master Plan, and b) Ensure that, for each type of land use, the amounts proposed do not exceed
those shown In Table 4C of the T1A "Staffs reason for plaCing thiS condition on the ZOning Map amendment
,
appllcal10n was to ensure the Integrity of the "nodal concept" discussed under TransPlan PoliCies, Land
,
Use Policy #1 Nodal Development beginning on Page 28 of thiS staff report The commerclal/resldentlal
percentage reqUirement serves two purposes 1) maintaining consistency With the TIA assumplions utilized
,
for Goal 12 compliance In the Metro Plan diagram application and ensuring compliance With the nodal
concept Staff IS also aware of the current market conditions for new hOUSing However, thiS IS a mixed use
,
development Implementing nodal concepts, and stafflwants to work towards achieVing the
resldentlaVcommerclal balance Staff believes that portions of the applicant's latest PhaSing Plan have
,
merit, Nevertheless, staff prefers a more "logical" phaSing approach Staff stili has the same concems about
,
grading Issues and the logical extension of streets and utilities, especially In the MDR portion of the site
,
The Planning Commission should also be aware that although there are 5 commercial Villages proposed,
,
again, based on market conditions, commercial development Will occur on a haphazard baSIS ThiS IS not
a maJor concern of staff because Phase 1 will Include all of the Internal streets and Infrastructure for the
commercial Villages I
PhaSing IS one of the baSIC underlYing assumptions Ifor thiS Master Plan application approved by the
Planning Commission on November 27, 2007 Staff has prepared two options to address the logical
phaSing of development on thiS site I
1 The TIA submitted With thiS Master Plan application concludes that construction of at least 87 Single-
,
family reSidential Units In proposed Phase 3 In conJunction With the home Improvement center would
,
address the Internal trip Issue as reqUIred by part a) of Condition 10 Due to the hOUSing market Issue
,
previously discussed, staff believes that compliance With part a) can be achieved by recording the
,
SubdiVISion Plat for Phase 3 prior to occupanc~ of the home Improvement center Then, In order to
,
maintain an appropriate balance of commercial and residential development over the life of the
,
Master Plan, and prOVide for the logical development of the MDR portion of the Site, future reSidential
,
SubdiVISion applications shall occur In an east to west progression of contiguous development If the
applicant or successor owners Wish to amend thiS PhaSing Plan option, to allow "fleXibility" In phaSing,
,
the applicant or successor owners shall obtain a Master Plan amendment to allow phaSing
modifications as speCified In SDC Section 5 13-~ 35 ThiS IS close to the PhaSing Plan staff discussed
With the applicant on November 21, 2007
2 The Intent of the second opl1on IS again to provld~ for a for a logical PhaSing Plan for the MDR portion
of the site In thiS case, proposed Phase 1 would Include all the Infrastructure reqUirements Cited
,
elsewhere In thiS staff report The tool to Implement proposed Phase 1 IS a Tental1ve SubdiVISion
application As shown on Plan Sheet 8, the applicant proposes to subdiVide the MDR portion of the site
,
Into four lots and only prOVide Infrastructure to the outer boundaries of these lots Staff proposes that In
the MDR portion of the Site, the applicant dedicate all streets, alleys and accessways, but not construct
,
these faCIlities, Install all utilities, and grade the entire MDR site as close as pOSSible to the final grading
,
reqUired by the City Staff does not want the streets to be constructed In thiS option because the City
56
does not want to assume the maintenance costs without the assurance of residential development over
the life of this Master Plan This IS staffs preferred option because residential development to occur on
a more random basIs, which IS what the applicant seems to desire This option will also help to resolve
some of the off-site drainage Issues discussed elsewhere In this staff report
Under both oplions the proposed park along the EWEB Bike Path shall be created as a separate lot, which
shall be reqUired to be developed as part of SIte Plan Review approval of the first residential development
on the site
The applicant shall utilize a bond or other security mechanism to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, the
Development Services Director and the Public Works Dlfector to guarantee that the phaSing Will occur as
required
Under either of these options, the applicant shall reconcile Plan Sheets 7 (PhaSing Plan) With Plan Sheet 8
Tentative Land DIVISion and Street Plan
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #51 Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
submit a PhaSing Plan to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and the Public Works
Dlfector based on one of the optIons prepared by staff, or as may be modified by the Planning
Commission The Intent IS that the proposed phaSing shall provide adequate gUidance for the design and
coordination of future phases of the proposed development
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #52 Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
submit a proposal to the satlsfactJon of the Development Services Dlfector, the Public Works Director and
the City Attorney to guarantee that the PhaSing Plan reqUired by thiS condition can be achieved
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #53 Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
reconcile discrepancies between Plan Sheets 7 and 8
CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned above, criterion 5 13-125D has been met
rCRITERION - 5 13-125E 1 "PhysIcal features, including but not limIted to, significant clusters of trees
and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water QualIty LimIted Watercourse (WQL~ Map and thelf
npanan areas, wetlands, open spaces, and areas of hlstonc and/or archaeological sIgnifIcance as may be
specified In ArtIcle 30 of thIs Code or ORS 97 740-760,358905-955 and 390 235-240 shall be protected
as speCified In thIS Code or In state or Federal law, "
Applicant's Response "Comments to thIS standard have already been addressed under ~5 13-
120(0), please refer to those comments begmnmg on p 17 for detaIled mformatlon "
SDC Section 5 12-120 F 9 reqUires a wetland delineation approved by the Department of State Lands
(DSL) be submitted concurrently With the proposed SubdiVISion Tentative Plan reqUired to Initiate
proposed Phase 1 development where wetlands are located on the property Due to the presence of
wetlands on tax lots 1800 and 2300, the applicant has submitted a wetlands delineation that has been
received by the DSL The delineation IS attachment F of the submitted JOint Permit Application
SDC Section 5 12-120 F 10 reqUires the applicant submit concurrently With the application eVidence that
any reqUIred federal or state permit has been applied for or approved The applicant has submitted a
JOint Permit application to the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands
for work to be done In the Identified wetland areas Approval of the JOint Permit IS pending
Based on staffs response, as conditioned below, Condition 2 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196
can be met
57
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #54 Concurrent with SubdivIsion Tentative Plan application reqUired
as part of Phase 1, the applicant shall submit the following information 1) a permit from the Army Corps
,
of Engineers andlor DSL for the relocated watercourse and work within the wetlands, 2) the approved
,
Mltlgatlon/Momtonng Plan for the watercourse, 3) a copy of any contingency bond and an explanation of
,
how compliance With the Momtonng Plan will occur With any subsequent change In ownership over the
,
life of the Master Plan, and 4) any other condition Imposed by either the Army Corps of Engineers or DSL
The contingency bond and the explanation of compliance shall to the satlsfaclion of the City Attorney and
,
the Development Services Dlfector and shall be made part of a deed restnctlon
I
CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned above, cnterlon 5 13-125E has been met
rCRITERION - 5 13-125F 1 "Local public facllltleslplans and local street plans shall not be adversely
Impacted by the proposed development" I
Applicant's Response "The Master Plan proposes street and utIlity Improvements that are wholly
,
consistent WIth reqUIrements of the CIty'S local publIC facIlitIes plans and local street plans As
,
noted above m demonstratmg consIstency WIth requirements m SDC SectlOn4 2-100, the
,
transportatIOn network Illustrated on the VIllages at Marcola Meadows Master Plan (Sheet 5,
Master Plan illustratIon) IS also consIstent WIth the locatIOn of streets shown generally m
,
TransPlan and the CIty'S Conceptual Local Stree,t Map Please refer to the comments for SDC
SectIOn 4 2-100 for more mformatlon PublIC faCIlities IdentifIed m the Master Plan as needed to
serve future development generally follow street nghts-of-way Therefore, the Master Plan's
,
proposal for development and UtilIty Improvements wIll not adversely Impact local publIC faCIlItIes
plans" I
Staff Response Staff has demonstrated elsewhere In this staff report that the on-site and off-site
transportation Issues have been met, as conditioned However, dUring the reqUIred Pre-Application
Report review process required pnor to the submittal of this Master Plan application, Lane County
Transportation reqUired an additional TIA, which thell applicant submitted Dunng the DRC review of this
Master Plan application, Lane County submitted the following comments
"Lane County's main concern IS on their sectIon of 3,1 st St whIch IS a substandard road for an Urban
Minor Collector Road 31s1 Street has only two travel lanes, whIch are 20 feet wIde WIthout curbs and
,
gutters, and sIdewalks The development plan proposes to Improve the City portIOn of 31st St to full urban
,
standards including bIke lane and sIdewalks whIch stops at the northern edge of the property line As per
,
the TlA, a substantIal number of auto tnps are predIcted between Yolanda A ve to the development sIte In
,
the year 2015 While the capacIty of the intersection, was concluded to be WIthin the Lane County
performance threshold In 2015, the TlA dId not address pedestnan and bIke traffic needs between the
,
County faCIlitIes and the development sIte We expect ped and bIke traffiC to Increase In the same
,
proportIOn as auto traffic In the future The dIscontinUity of bIke path and sIdewalks force the pedestnans
,
and bIcyclIsts to compete for the narrow road To accommodate thIs bIke and ped safety concern the
,
master plan must continue urban Improvement up to Yolanda Ave"
I
MASTER PLAN CONDITION #55 Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall
,
submit plans approved by the Lane County Public Works Director for reqUired street Improvements along
the west side of 31'" Street from the EWEB Bike Path to Yolanda Avenue Construction of these
,
Improvements shall be concurrent With the installation of Improvements reqUired to be completed as part
of Phase 1 I
CONCLUSION' Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned above, criterion 5 13-125F has been met
58
I XI CONCLUSION
Applicant's Response "The VIllages at Marcola Meadows IS an excltmg proposal, offenng an
entlcmg mIx of resIdentIal enVIronments, commercIal and specIalty retaIl shoppmg opportumtles,
eatmg and dmmg establIshments, and medIcal and profeSSional offIces desIgned to address the
dally needs of nearby resIdents as well as the greater North Sprmgfleld neIghborhood The
VIllages will be centered around a PacIfIc Northwest theme, generous In the use of contemporary,
yet tImeless natural materials and hIgh qualIty sIte furnlshmgs and pedestrian amemtles The
VIllages, whIle each umque, WIll be held together WIth meandermg waterways, natIve plant
commumtles and contmuous open space The VIllages at Marcola Meadows WIll be lIke no other
place to lIve, work or shop m the Sprmgfleld Commumty "
Staff believes that, as conditioned, Issues regarding the reqUired PhaSing Plan and Issues regarding the
City's needs for the Installation of roundabouts can be accomplished Before making the If deCISion, the
Planning Commission must be confident that these two Issues and other Issues raised In thiS staff report
can be resolved Before making their deCISion, the Planning Commission must be able to answer the
question staff raised dunng the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment process Will
Springfield's c,t,zens, especially the neighbors, be assured that a "quality" development, as proposed, can
be constructed over time?
I XII APPEALS
SDC Seclion 5 3-120 governs the appeals process Only those persons who participated either orally or
In wntlng have standing to appeal the deCISion of the Planning Commission Grounds for appeal are
limited to those Issues raised either orally or In writing before the close of the public record An appeal
application shall be filed With the Dlfector Within 15 calendar days of the Planning Commission's deCISion
The Director shall proVide notice of the public hearing to all parties who participated either orally or In
writing before the close of the public record leading to the Planning CommiSSion's deCISion The review
shall be as determined by the City CounCil The parties may be permitted to present their oral or written
arguments as to all matters Within that record The City CounCil shall consider the Director's report and all
other eVidence presented, including oral and wntten testimony In mak,ng their deCISion The City CounCil
may affirm, modify or reverse the Director's deCISion and shall adopt findings In support of their deCISion
The City CounCil may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary In order to allow the appeal to
be granted The City CounCil's deCISion IS the final local deCISion A deCISion of the City CounCil may be
appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals as specified In ORS Chapter 197
59
TO REVIEWERS
FM GARY M KARP, SENIOR PLANNER
RE MASTER PLAN CONDITION #27 STATUS
Master Plan Condition of Approval #27 5) states "ProvIde fmanclal security acceptable to the
CIty Engmeer m an amount equal to the cost of sIgnalized traffIC control to provIde for
future traffIC control at the arterlal/sJte driveway mtersectlon locatIOn The form and tlmmg
offuture traffIC control wIll be based on traffIC operatJonal and safety needs as determmed
by the CIty Engmeer, and shall not mclude a roundabout form of control"
DUring the Iterative review process regarding the expedited land use agreement document for
Phases 1 and 2, the property owner negotiated the follOWing provIsion addreSSing this Item In
Subsection (v) of that document"
"5 As fmanclal security for the provIsIon of a future traffIC control at the arterial/sIte
driveway mtersectlOn locatIOn more particularly described and set forth m Master
Plan ConditIon 27 (5) the applIcant shall, not later than SIX weeks after executIOn of
this document or Fmal SIte Plan Approval, whIchever first occurs, provIde a
Performance Bond or other fmanclal security acceptable to the CIty Engmeer m an
amount equal to the cost of the sIgnalIzed traffIC control to provIde for future traffIC
control at the arterial/sIte driveway mtersectlon locatIon In the event that the
applIcant falls to provIde such secunty by thIs deadlme, all applicatIons provIded m
thIs agreement shall be ImmedIately converted by CIty from expedIted to non.
expedited, normal processmg In the event of such converSIon, the CJty WIll revIew
the $500,000 already paId for expedIted processmg and apply It to all CIty costs,
mcludmg but not lImIted to Development ServIce DIVISIon processmg, programmmg
and Personnel and PubliC Works processmg, programmmg and Personnel costs
mcurred m antIcIpatIon and/or executIon of the expedIted processmg In the event
of any funds remammg after such applicatIOns by the CIty, CIty m Its dIscretIon may
apply the remamder to normal processmg fees of the applicatIOns Further, the
conversIon by the CIty from expedIted to non-expedIted, normal processmg shall not
relieve the applicant from the condItIOn of Master Plan CondItIOn 27 (5) to provIde
fmanClal security acceptable to the CIty Engmeer m an amount equal to the cost of
the sIgnalized traffIC control to provIde for future traffIC control at the arterial sIte
driveway mtersectlOn locatIOn, and Fmal SIte Plan Approval and Issuance of the SIte
Plan Development Agreement Approval shall be WIthheld until prOVISIon of such
financIal security "
However, to date, that document has not been signed by the City or the property owner ThiS
means that unless there's a signed agreement for expedited reView, the terms of Master Plan
Condition of Approval #27 5) stili apply and must be complied WIth before the CIty WIll grant Final
Master Plan approval
"
For those of you who may have a deslfe to see the entire agreement to date, please let me
know
'~
-3
The Final Master
Plan review packet
contained all of the
final submittal
materials that were
scanned in as
originals and was
distributed 6-12-08.
r
f
,
IlIustratlOn
THE VILLAGES AT MARCOLA MEADOWS
FINAL MASTERPLAN
Lane County Assessor's Map 17-02-30-00, Lot 1800
and Map 17-03-25-11, Lot 2300
1_- __I_
. .................... .
PublIc TranSIt
Master Plan Open Space
VlclOlty
Marcola Meadows Site and MalO Street RetaIl VIllage
SC Springfield, LLC
r 7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102
l5ate Reeelved' Reno, Nevada 89511
JW~ 1 2 2008
Final SUlJiiI.ttal
April 30, 2008